On Friday morning, Dean Del Mastro was convicted of violating the Elections Act. With that, his situation became a matter for the House of Commons. And, as I type now on Tuesday afternoon, it appears the House is on the verge of suspending Del Mastro from the chamber—with a decision on his possible expulsion from the House put off for the time being.

The Elections Act, under which Del Mastro was charged, has its own stipulation for offences:

502 (3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to (a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons; or (b) hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council.

(Emphasis mine.)

That would seem to make Del Mastro ineligible to return to his seat in the House. But the House of Commons is in charge of its own business and its own membership. Whatever the law says about one’s right to occupy a seat in the House, it is still for the House to enforce any such standard.

Perhaps underlining the seriousness of expulsion, there aren’t a lot of precedents for what the House faces here. In all its history, the House has only expelled three members: Louis Riel (twice, in 1874 and 1875), Thomas McGreevy (in 1891) and Fred Rose (in 1947). Rose, a Communist elected as a Labour Progressive MP in 1943 and 1945, was convicted as a Russian spy as part of the Gouzenko affair. He was expelled from the House on Jan. 30, 1947. Rather simply, after the Speaker tabled the relevant court documents, the House unanimously adopted a motion declaring his seat vacant and calling for a new election.

Rose was first convicted on June 15, 1946, and he was sentenced five days later. His lawyers filed an appeal between the verdict and sentencing, but, according to the book Stalin’s Man in Ottawa, Rose was denied bail while he waited for a ruling on that appeal. (There is a short reference in Hansard to Rose having been imprisoned in a “Montreal gaol.”)

In Del Mastro’s case, the House was faced with the possibility that an MP convicted of violating the Elections Act would be allowed to continue speaking in the House and to vote on legislation until his legal appeals were exhausted, however long that took.

Yesterday afternoon, both NDP House leader Peter Julian and Government House leader Peter Van Loan made full submissions to the Speaker, each rising on his own questions of privilege. In sum, Julian suggested Del Mastro be suspended from the House without pay immediately and the matter be referred to the Procedure and House Affairs committee for further study, while Van Loan wanted the Procedure and House Affairs committee to decide whether and how to suspend or expel Del Mastro. (Van Loan did allow, however, that a suspension could be a good interim measure until Del Mastro had exhausted his appeals.)

Van Loan noted that when Del Mastro’s case comes up for sentencing, the judge could, in theory, grant Del Mastro a discharge—a result that would effectively nullify the conviction. The Government House leader also suggested that Del Mastro be given an opportunity to address the House before the Speaker ruled. (Note: Del Mastro’s lawyers are also attempting to have the case reopened.)

Nonetheless, the Speaker ruled this afternoon that the matter of Del Mastro did constitute a prima facie matter of privilege for the House to consider. And, because Julian’s notice of privilege had gotten to the Speaker’s office before Van Loan’s, the Speaker invited Julian to move his motion to suspend the former Conservative MP and Julian did so.

Whatever his concerns yesterday, Van Loan soon thereafter stood and said that the government would support the NDP motion—seeming to clear the way for the NDP motion to pass and suspending Del Mastro from the House immediately.

As I type, the House is still debating the NDP motion (which is also now the object of two amendments). Matters of privilege take precedence over all other debate, so this debate will dominate House business until the parties agree to conclude debate or the government moves for closure.

Presuming that the House approves the NDP motion, the Procedure and House Affairs committee would then be charged with sorting out the details of the situation, including the possibility of a future expulsion.

Regardless of whether that very drastic measure comes to pass, the House is now involved in some rather serious business.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/what-should-the-house-of-commons-do-about-dean-del-mastro/feed/4Why is the Harper government using time allocation so often?http://www.macleans.ca/politics/why-is-the-harper-government-using-time-allocation-so-often/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/why-is-the-harper-government-using-time-allocation-so-often/#commentsTue, 24 Jun 2014 20:03:31 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=569607An oral history of managing debate

Before the House adjourned for the summer, the Conservatives managed to pass their 75th motion of time allocation in the current Parliament. As noted previously, that far surpasses any previously known record of the measure being invoked to impose a limit on debate in the House of Commons.

Standing Order 78, the applicable rule here, allows for the scheduling of debate, either by agreement of the parties or by a vote in the House, if unanimous agreement cannot be found. According to the official guide to practice and procedure, the procedure evolved out of the fractious Pipeline Debate of 1956, and it has been used with varying frequency since then, with at least 30 uses in the three Parliaments between 1984 and 1997 (covering two Conservative majorities and one Liberal majority).

Not that it was used without complaint. Here is Deborah Grey chiding the Liberal government of the day for its use of time allocation. And here is Jason Kenney expressing his disappointment with the “excessive use of what really should be a very rare lever to limit debate in this place.” (Here, for the record, is every reference to “time allocation” in the House between January 1994 and December 2005.)

In theory, every member of the House could comment on every government bill at every stage of debate (private members’ bills are limited to two hours of debate). But that’s not at all feasible for the purposes of governing a country: Assuming 20-minute speeches from all 307 members, you’d need about 100 hours of debate at each stage. So, in order for anything to get done, some limits must be applied to the amount of debate each bill receives.

The schedule for debate in the House of Commons might thus be set via negotiation among the parties, those discussions conducted between each party’s House leader. I asked Bill Blaikie, the former NDP MP and House leader, how it worked when he was involved in those negotiations:

There was, “Well, we think we need a couple more days on this, and if you give us a couple more days on this, then we know you want this other thing through in a hurry and we don’t see any problem with that.” So there would be some give and take. And sometimes, we’d have to make it clear: “Well, on this one, we really can’t agree. We’re really so opposed that you probably will have to move time allocation.”

In Blaikie’s recollection, though, time allocation was generally invoked after some significant amount of debate had already transpired. “So there would be a sense that time allocation comes after the government, at least, has some argument that, well, this has gone on long enough,” he says.

In the current situation, time allocation seems to be regularly invoked not long after debate on a bill has begun.

In an interview with me earlier this month, Government House leader Peter Van Loan presented, in part, an attempt to re-imagine the measure:

So, what I try to do is use it for scheduling, not to shut down debate. In most cases, usually, we do it early in the process, rather than late in the process. We canvas what people want to do. Some people give us feedback, some don’t. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. And we take our best estimate, or guess at what’s an appropriate time for debate that will allow it to make sure it comes to a vote . . .

There’s no doubt we have used it as a scheduling device, not as a limiting of debate device. So, yeah, we’ve tried to change the culture around it, the whole meaning of it and what it does. In the past, I think, while it was intended when drafted as a scheduling device, the way it was used in practice, and the rhetoric around it, had meant that it was for shutting down debate. I think that comment can be fairly directed at closure—closure is essentially always doing that—and you could also direct it what the Liberals always used to do; they did four-hour time allocation by sending every bill to committee before second reading. That was their way of limiting debate while appearing not to limit debate. We have tried to use it, almost always, as a scheduling device. And yeah, there may be occasions where we’re in a pinch and in a crunch where the time allocated might be a little bit tight, but because we’re up against a deadline and we need something done.

Of course, if the parties could agree on a schedule for debate, there wouldn’t seem much reason to impose time allocation. Indeed, as it is, time allocation is a bit of a waste of time. First, any motion for time allocation is subject to 30 minutes of debate. It then has to be voted on, that vote preceded by a 30-minute period for MPs to gather in the House. Time allocation thus chews up an hour of time the House might’ve otherwise had to discuss other things. (The government side might object here, and argue that the opposition could agree to forgo the debate and the recorded vote.)

Van Loan’s suggestion that “some people” don’t give feedback would seem to suggest some lack of co-operation among the parties, and the Government House leader added that “the NDP has taken a conscience decision to run up the score, to make it impossible to come to agreement.”

Liberal House leader Dominic LeBlanc offers a similar account:

The NDP has become increasingly unable to provide information about timetables, length of debate and the anticipated duration of a debate on a particular bill. I remember, in previous Parliaments, the NDP were much more transparent and willing to share information around scheduling and speaking orders and so on. It is a recent development where they have basically decided to co-operate with no one and, as such, they have contributed significantly to the dysfunction.

NDP House leader Peter Julian says that’s not the case:

That is simply not true. While we don’t talk publicly about the details of the meetings, if you look at the Government House leader’s approach in the House of Commons, you can imagine what his idea of collaboration is like behind closed doors.

In interviews this month, Julian has presented a couple of arguments. First, that the government is insufficiently open to opposition amendments:

Our job as Official Opposition is to say, particularly when we agree with the principles of the legislation, “Here are amendments that will make the legislation stand up to scrutiny, and there are amendments that will actually make the legislation do what it purports to do.” The problem on the government side is they consistently refuse those amendments. Even when they make sense, even when they’re reinforced by the public and by experts, they systematically refuse all the amendments, which is why they have a such a poor record in terms of product recall.

So we like to make the case for those amendments. Of course, if the government were willing to co-operate, it would be in their interests . . . And if they said, first off, “Okay, here’s a piece of legislation; we know you support it in principle; we’re actually willing to work with you on amendments,” then I think it would be fair to say the approach would be different and we wouldn’t have to make the case in the House of Commons necessarily around those amendments because the government would be working with us.

Second, that the government doesn’t allow a sufficient amount of time for debate:

The principle of this place is members are here to represent their ridings; they’re here to speak out on issues and they’re also here to offer suggestions to the government. Now, we have a government that doesn’t want those suggestions, and that has been to their detriment . . .

To say only 15 MPs are able to speak to all of your average bills, that is very clearly contravening what Canadians want to see here. They want to see vivid debate, they want to see a government that actually listens to the improvements that can be made to bills and they want to see their member of parliament being able to speak out. When you say only 15 can speak on this, or only 12 can speak on this, you’re disenfranchising all of those other ridings across the country . . .

The principle should be that you have a few days of debate and then, after that, there should be discussions. But you’ve got a government that defines debate as something almost subversive.

Back then to Dominic LeBlanc, who generally blames both the Conservatives and the New Democrats for the state of things:

The government races to the basement with them. The government likes the race to the basement on this stuff. It’s a chicken-and-egg loop. They use the NDP obstinance as a justification to impose more time allocation. Because the government imposes more time allocation, the NDP become more obstinate. They’re both in a very irritating race to the bottom on this stuff . . .

The government is clearly acting in a provocative way, as well. The government is absolutely behaving in an undemocratic way. The NDP take the bait and then it justifies more undemocratic initiatives, and then the outrage gets higher. It really is literally a vicious circle, now that they’re in . . .

If the government never accepts an opposition amendment, if the government forces every committee into in-camera sessions . . . the government starts from such a position of undemocratic aggression that it then begets the reaction . . .

To be fair, the government started it . . . but the NDP are unable to get off that treadmill.

There’s an argument to be made here over opposition tactics and tone: The Liberals, in my observation, have tended toward a more genteel, Victorian approach to opposition, while the NDP prefers an activist approach (this probably has something to do with their respective histories and, I suspect, in some ways, they’re each influenced by the tenor of the other). But, ultimately, we end up with an argument about how well the parliamentary caucuses interact with each other, how well we should expect them to get along and how debate in the House should be managed.

Settling on how much debate should be had on each bill is a fraught exercise. To some degree, you’re counting hours, but you should also be counting the number of weeks between the bill’s tabling and its passage; it’s not merely about how many hours of debate it receives in the House, but how much time there is for wider scrutiny and public discussion and for public opinion to coalesce. For that matter, we could have a long discussion about the value of debate in the House, or whether more independent committees could compensate for less time spent debating in the House.

That the parties won’t always agree on how long a bill should be debated is to be expected. That they might find some way to come to agreement on some things seems like a decent goal.

Last year, Francois Plante, a former House of Commons intern, published a short history of curtailing debate in the House. In his final paragraph, he suggested a few options for establishing a better way of doing things, but, within that piece, he noted that, for awhile, the House seems to have managed to go about its business without imposing limits on debate.

The reasons the previous question was little used in the first Parliaments are intriguing. O’Brien and Bosc suggest the following: For the first 45 years following Confederation, the only tool at the government’s disposal was the previous question . . . Not only was there no other way of putting an end to a specific debate within a reasonable time, but there were no formal time limits of any kind on debates. The length of speeches was unlimited. The conduct and duration of proceedings in the House were based largely upon a spirit of mutual fair play where informal arrangements, or “closure by consent,” governed the debate.

In short, the early Parliament of Canada was likely characterized by a greater spirit of co-operation among the parties.

There are a lot of reasons to avoid pining for the early years of Parliament (I’m not saying things were demonstrably better before we gave women the vote, but . . .), but it’s probably worth considering whether we could get along without unilateral impositions on the amount of debate in the House. At the very least, the use of time allocation would seem to suggest some inability to get along.

As the House stumbles to an ignoble end to the spring sitting—yesterday’s QP was a particularly dim 45 minutes—we are at least getting another seminar in parliamentary procedure.

At 10 o’clock last night, the House of Commons still sitting until midnight in the pre-summer rush to pass legislation, NDP deputy House leader Phil Toone stood during debate on the government’s immigration reformed. Shenanigans ensued (some of the highlights are in the video above).

The fun starts here, with Mr. Toone, perhaps just to see if anyone on the other side was paying attention, moving that the chamber adjourn for the day. When a motion such as that is proposed, the Speaker first asks the House whether the member has unanimous consent to move the motion. If the members present in the House voice agreement, the Speaker then asks whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.

For whatever reason, no voice of objection was raised when the Speaker (Joe Comartin, in this case) took that first step. Objections were voiced to the motion itself and so a vote was suddenly going to be necessary.

Government House leader Peter Van Loan, saying that he had reviewed the tape, quickly complained that the Speaker had moved two quickly to the second part and that the House translators had been slow in translating the first part (Mr. Comartin was speaking en francais), so that Conservatives did not properly have a chance to object. At that point, Comartin actually suspended the House for 24 minutes so that he could review the tape himself.

After going to instant replay, Comartin determined that no mistake had been made. The Conservatives tried to throw a question of privilege at the situation, but Comartin dismissed that and the House was thus compelled to take the time to go through a standing vote, on which the motion to adjourn was defeated by a count of 63 to 20. Nonetheless, NDP House leader Peter Julian celebrated a kind of victory over his Conservative counterpart (the New Democrats had previously objected to what was included in the motion to allow for the extension of sitting hours this month).

Meanwhile, responding a complaint registered by Mr. Julian, the Speaker ruled yesterday that the government’s use of an obscure standing order to force NDP leader Thomas Mulcair to testify at a parliamentary committee was improper. Mr. Julian’s objection came too late to do anything about what has resulted from the government’s move, but it does at least add a footnote to the affair.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/fun-and-games-with-parliamentary-procedure/feed/1The Commons: Now is not the time for subtletyhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-now-is-it-not-the-time-for-subtlety/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-now-is-it-not-the-time-for-subtlety/#commentsThu, 25 Apr 2013 22:32:01 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=377333Oil and the climate are at war and you must pick a side

]]>It was just two weeks ago, asked about Alberta’s carbon tax, that Peter Kent was moved to muse aloud about a contentious and contested topic. “There hasn’t,” he ventured, “been a great deal of subtlety in talking about carbon pricing.”

Perhaps this lack of subtlety is something like the root cause of our current impasse. Or perhaps this is no time for nuance.

The foreign press is now referring to Joe Oliver as the Canadian “oil minister, which is terribly unfair to the trees and rocks and water he is also responsible for making use of. Of a year-old op-ed, Mr. Oliver is accusing a NASA scientist of “crying wolf” and suggesting that James Hansen “should be chaining himself to a mannequin in Rodeo Drive,” which would be pointless unless the mannequin was itself nailed down. And now another scientist is likening Mr. Oliver to “a Shetland pony in the Kentucky Derby,” who is “making Canada look like a country full of jerks,” which is terribly unfair to at least the three or four of us who aren’t.

It was on something like this note that Mr. Mulcair stood to harangue the government side this afternoon.

“Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Natural Resources is not quoting fictional climate scientists, he is attacking the real ones,” Mr. Mulcair reported in his speed-up-then-slow-down way of lecturing. “Yesterday in Washington the Minister of Natural Resources lashed out at a former NASA climate scientist calling his work … ‘nonsense.’ He accused scientists who speak out about climate change of ‘crying wolf.’ ”

There was a question here, but it was mostly rhetorical. “Was the Minister of Natural Resources sent to Washington to insult U.S. government scientists?” Mr. Mulcair wondered.

James Moore, filling in for the prime minister, was no doubt happy to make the contrast Mr. Mulcair had thus invited.

“Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Minister of Natural Resources is in Washington is to fight for Canadian jobs and protect our environment,” Mr. Moore explained. “This is in perfect clear and stark contrast with the reason why New Democrat members of Parliament went to Washington, D.C., to fight against Canadian interests, to fight against the creation of Canadian jobs, and to come back here to Ottawa and offer no plan with regard to climate change.”

“That is interesting, Mr. Speaker,” the NDP leader mused, a piece of white paper now in his hand. “Here is a direct quote from the Canadian Press, April 19, 2013 during the visit of the Minister of Finance to Washington, ‘Keystone will be good for employment in the United States.” More than 40,000 well-paying jobs will be created in the U.S.”

There seemed to be a clap on the government side, before the point of Mr. Mulcair’s point became clear.

“We are fighting for jobs in Canada,” Mr. Mulcair declared. “We have no lessons to take from them.”

The New Democrats stood and applauded.

Mr. Moore started to stand up, but Mr. Mulcair was actually not quite done and now the NDP leader switched to French to state his question as various Conservatives shouted for the Speaker to call time.

“Mr. Speaker,” the Heritage Minister lamented when he was finally allowed to respond, “it is sad that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand comparative or competitive economics. The fact is the Keystone XL project will create jobs on both sides of the border. This project is projected to create over 140,000 jobs in Canada.”

Of Mr. Moore’s fact, there can be no doubt. Of Mr. Moore’s projection, there might be some debate. (The minister’s figure is drawn from a projection by the Canadian Energy Research Institute of jobs “created and preserved.”)

“Just because it will create jobs in the United States does not mean it will not create jobs in Canada,” Mr. Moore continued. “This is a fallacy left over from NDP economics when those members fought against the FTA and fought against NAFTA, and they continue it again today. At their convention they said they took socialism out of the preamble of their constitution, but it is clear that it is alive and well in NDP economics.”

A few rounds later, it was Peter Julian of the New Democrats, lamenting for a government that denies climate change and sells our national resources to the Chinese government. Which might not bother Mr. Julian so much if he realized the Chinese were interested in putting a price on carbon.

Regardless, Peter Kent stood here to proclaim much progress.

“Our government is the first Canadian government to actually reduce greenhouse gases,” the Environment Minister declared. “We have decoupled emissions from economic growth.”

Except that that decoupling would seem to predate most of the government’s policies on emissions.

Mr. Julian was unpersuaded. “Mr. Speaker, that desperate spin does not hide the fact that only the NDP has sustainable policies and that is why Canadians need an NDP government in 2015, because Conservatives failed in the climate change fight,” he proclaimed. “Canadians deserve better.”

“Will the minister stop denying climate change,” the New Democrat begged of the absent Mr. Oliver, “start acknowledging the danger in the rise in global temperatures and support the NDP motion to combat climate change now?”

Mr. Kent moved now to reassure Mr. Julian of at least some general belief on the government side. “Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has made it clear on any number of occasions in any number of venues just how important this government considers the climate change challenge to be,” Mr. Kent said of his colleague.

But then the minister did not want to finish this day without reminding Mr. Julian of what the New Democrats were scheming to do. “At the same time,” Mr. Kent continued, “the NDP would pick the pockets of hard-working Canadians with a $21-billion carbon tax. That would not guarantee the reduction of a single megatonne of greenhouse gases. Our government has a plan. The NDP has no plan, other than to exploit hard-working Canadians.”

]]>In being the last of the major parties never to have formed a federal government, the NDP has won something almost nearly as satisfying: the right to pronounce shame on the Senate. Perhaps the meek shall one day inherit the earth, but first those unencumbered by never having had to do anything about the Senate shall inherit the righteous indignation about the chamber’s continued existence.

“Mr. Speaker, in the Senate, the more things change, the more they stay the same,” Thomas Mulcair sighed this afternoon. “Senator Pamela Wallin claimed more than $300,000 in travel expenses over the last three years alone. Less than ten percent of these costs were used for her movements in Saskatchewan. This is taxpayers’ money that Senator Wallin used to walk across the country to star in fundraising for the Conservatives. Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for taxpayers’ money to be used to raise funds for his political party?”

It is unclear how much of Mr. Mulcair’s aspersion here can be precisely substantiated—specifically how much of Senator Wallin’s travel expenses could be said to have resulted from partisan activities. Suffice it to say, the Prime Minister “regretted” the opposition leader’s “characterization.”

“In terms of Senator Wallin, I have looked at the numbers,” Mr. Harper reported.

“Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over that period of time. For instance, last year Senator Wallin spent almost half of her time in the province she represents in the Senate. The costs are obviously to travel to and from that province, as any similar parliamentarian would do.”

Mr. Mulcair was not quite reassured.

“Mr. Speaker, when Pamela Wallin was appointed to the Senate it was well-known that she had not lived in Saskatchewan in decades,” he reported. “When Mike Duffy was appointed to the Senate, it was well-known that he had not lived on Prince Edward Island in decades. When Patrick Brazeau was appointed to the Senate, it was well-known that he had serious personal and ethical issues. These are the Prime Minister’s own appointments. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his senators?”

The NDP leader stressed the possessive pronoun.

“Mr. Speaker, obviously the leader of the opposition is mixing different cases,” the Prime Minister lamented.

There were chuckles from the NDP side.

“In the case of Senator Brazeau,” Mr. Harper continued, “I would point out that not long before I named Senator Brazeau, at the request of the NDP he spoke here on the floor of the House of Commons.”

It is unclear whether this—a reference to Mr. Brazeau’s participation in the residential schools apology—should serve to sufficiently explain or defend the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint him to the Senate.

“He was a respected leader of a national aboriginal organization,” the Prime Minister explained. “Obviously, some things have happened more recently that are before the courts and the Senate has taken the appropriate action under the circumstances.”

Later, the New Democrats pressed on and so Government House leader Peter Van Loan was compelled to stand and plead the Conservatives’ case.

“Mr. Speaker, NDP members do seem to like to tar with a broad brush a wide number of good people, including Senator Wallin,” Mr. Van Loan lamented.

There were chuckles from the NDP side.

“And they are doing so using what they say is a non-partisan person,” Mr. Van Loan continued. “We heard in the statement by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster earlier a reference to a professor … That professor, Mr. Leeson, is actually a former staff member to two NDP premiers and is currently on board the Team Trent leadership campaign for the NDP. Not only is he not a non-partisan official, he is not even non-partisan within the NDP.”

There were now chuckles from the Conservatives.

If nothing else then, the Conservatives can tell their supporters this much: at least we haven’t appointed to the Senate any professors with known links to the NDP.

But then Mr. Van Loan hadn’t quite rebutted the most seemingly damning part of Peter Julian’s statement.

“The average senator,” the MP for Burnaby-New Westminster reported, “worked only 56 days last year.”

Presumably that is based on a calculation of sitting days minus absences and divided by senators. And perhaps “sitting days” isn’t a perfect analogy for days “worked.” But even if it was a New Democrat who was responsible for devising this conclusion, if the math is correct, the fact is more difficult to dismiss.

Nineteen years ago this Friday, a relatively young Reform MP, elected just four months previous, stood to comment on legislation to allow the construction of a bridge to Prince Edward Island. Because of the province’s terms of union, this was actually a constitutional matter. And since this was a constitutional matter, the relatively young Reform MP proceeded with a long speech about the possibility of reforming the Senate.

“It is interesting to see in this century what has happened to upper houses, not just in the anglo-American world but across the world. Those houses that were built mainly or almost exclusively on pre-democratic theory have atrophied or disappeared. I think, for example, of the House of Lords in Britain which still exists today but which has largely been stripped of its powers and exists, I suggest, as a relic of another era. In the case of our provinces, the legislative councils, the upper houses of the provinces, which really had an exclusive pre-democratic function, have entirely disappeared, the last being in Quebec in 1968,” the Reform MP explained. “However, those houses built on the concept of regional representation within a federation have remained and by and large flourished as legislative chambers. The Senates in the United States and Australia have become elected bodies and have become very powerful.”

At the time, Stephen Harper’s plea was apparently simple. “Senate election, which I have spoken on specifically, is a partial solution that does not even require opening the Constitution in order to proceed,” he said. “It only requires a basic sense of fairness.”

Twelve years later, he became Prime Minister. And seven years after that, he decided that the Supreme Court’s advice was necessary as to the constitutionality of his decision.

One might wonder whether the principle of regional representation as manifest in the Senate—how many people in New Brunswick sleep better tonight knowing they have 10 senators—makes it worth worrying about Senator Wallin’s travel expenses.

]]>The NDP held their annual holiday party in the Hall of Honour. Great lighting, booze bars, an oyster bar and food stations were spread over the Hall and and adjoining meeting rooms. It was one of the best parties held on the Hill.

The Harper government has approved both CNOOC Limited’s $15.1-billion acquisition of Nexen Inc. and Petronas’ $5.2-billion acquisition of Progress Energy Resources Corp., while announcing new guidelines for foreign investment in Canada.

In separate statements released after North American markets closed on Friday, Industry Minister Christian Paradis said he was satisfied that the acquisitions by Malaysia’s Petronas and China’s CNOOC were likely to be of net benefit to Canada. Paradis said both companies had “made significant commitments to Canada in the areas of: governance, including commitments on transparency and disclosure; commercial orientation, including an adherence to Canadian laws and practices as well as free market principles” and “employment and capital investments, which demonstrate a long-term commitment to the development of the Canadian economy.” Initially, Malaysia’s Petronas $6-billion bid for Progress Energy was rejected by the federal government and the company later revised its proposal.

“Our statements today will not satisfy everybody,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said shortly after the announcements were made. “Some believe you are either ‘for’ foreign investment under all circumstances, or that you must be ‘against’ foreign investment under any circumstance. Practical government rarely permits such simplicity.”

Under the new guidelines, the acquisition of oil sands companies by foreign state-owned enterprises will only be found to constitute a new benefit for Canada in “exceptional circumstances.” And, despite today’s decision on Nexen, the prime minister seemed eager to draw a line on such investments, saying these decisions marked “not the beginning of a trend, but rather the end of a trend.”

“To be blunt, Canadians have not spent years reducing the ownership of sectors of the economy by our own governments, only to see them bought and controlled by foreign governments instead. That was never the purpose of the Investment Canada Act. It is not an outcome that Canadians would ever support. It is not an outcome any responsible government of Canada could ever allow to happen,” the Prime Minister explained.

Beyond the oil sands, acquisitions by state-owned companies will be reviewed to consider the control or influence to be exerted on the Canadian business, the control or influence likely to be exerted on the larger industry and the control or influence likely to be exerted by the foreign government over the state-owned company.

“In light of growing trends, and following the decisions made today, the government of Canada has determined that foreign state control of oil sands development has reached the point at which further such foreign state control would not be of net benefit to Canada,” Harper said. “When we say that Canada is open for business, we do not mean that Canada is for sale to foreign governments.”

The Conservative government’s decisions drew mixed reviews.

David Detomasi, a professor of international business at Queen’s University, said the two deals forced Ottawa to clarify the Investment Canada Act’s “net benefit” test, which was used to quash the takeover of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan two years ago. “I think the Harper government was caught a little bit flat-footed when these bids were made,” he says. “I think they realized that whatever precedent they set was going to be something they were going to have to live with. And that’s because there are likely other deals in the offing.”

Even so, it will be a tough balance for Ottawa to strike, according to Detomasi. Recovering crude from the oil sands is a massively capital-intensive business and there aren’t enough deep-pocketed Canadian companies capable of making the necessary investments. And many foreign companies—particularly those in China—are state-owned. “Unfortunately, they’re the ones with the cash.”

The opposition New Democrats declared themselves “profoundly disappointed” with the Nexen deal, suggesting that proper public consultation did not occur before the decision was made. “Canadians should be very apprehensive about the long-term economic and environmental consequences,” Peter Julian, the NDP’s natural resources critic, said in a release. “In the past, these kinds of takeovers have resulted in job losses. In October, the NDP called for the government to reject the CNOOC acquisition.

While saying that the Liberals welcome investment—”we do need investment in the oilsands and in other industries”—Liberal trade critic Wayne Easter also expressed concerns. “There’s still really no clarity. We still don’t know the details. We have no idea what those rules really are,” he said. “Are all state-owned enterprises being handled the same, whether it’s China or any other country? Should there be different criteria, given the strategic planning of some countries versus others? Is there reciprocity here? I’m led to believe there’s not. There should be reciprocity in terms of how Canadian investment in China is handled in a similar way to Chinese investment in Canada.”

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said her government was “pleased” with the Harper government’s decisions, but that Alberta would be seeking clarity on how “exceptional circumstances” will be defined.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/harper-government-approves-cnooc-and-petronas-deals/feed/9The Commons: In praise of the simple questionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-in-praise-of-the-simple-question/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-in-praise-of-the-simple-question/#commentsMon, 03 Dec 2012 21:54:22 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=322927A dull day in the House is not entirely wasted

]]>The Scene. Thomas Mulcair charged into the afternoon with a litany of concerns.

“Mr. Speaker, last quarter, Canadian economic growth slowed to a rate of just six-tenths of one per cent,” he reported. “Conservatives have now missed their own economic growth targets three quarters in a row. They have had to downgrade their economic growth forecast for 2012 by nearly a third and it is now widely expected that the Bank of Canada will have to downgrade its own economic forecast as well. The Minister of Finance announced new economic numbers just three weeks ago. Does the minister still stand by those numbers today, or will we have to downgrade his economic projections yet again?”

The Minister of Finance was not in the House, so John Baird stood to handle this one. But first, a nod to the expectant royal couple.

“Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not first stand up and extend our congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the announcement coming from Burn’s House earlier today,” enthused the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Conservatives duly applauded.

At the far end of the room, Bob Rae leaned forward and put his head in his hands. Ralph Goodale patted him on the shoulder.

A mostly—particularly—dull and witless afternoon proceeded with little or no progress to report on much of anything. There was though at least one reasonable question.

“Mr. Speaker, one thing we do know is that with slower growth, inequality is only going to be increasing in the country,” Bob Rae prefaced after Peter Julian and Christian Paradis had finished condemning each other. “It poses a very serious challenge, particularly to those who are disabled.”

It being the United Nations’ International Day of Persons with Disabilities, this seemed on topic.

“I have a very simple question for the government,” Mr. Rae explained. “The government has a disability tax credit, but it only applies to those people who are disabled and who have income. I wonder, would the government consider making this income tax credit refundable?”

This seemed not entirely rhetorical: a question that might, presumably, be answered, or at least responded to, in an equally straightforward manner. Alas, Mr. Baird seemed not to have been provided with such an answer.

“Mr. Speaker, this government has taken substantial efforts to encourage economic growth and substantial efforts to help those Canadians with a disability,” he enthused.

What the minister did have was a white piece of paper on which were scribbled some things about inequality.

“For example, just with respect to inequality, this government has an EI hiring tax credit, the third quarter project, a youth employment strategy, an apprenticeship incentive grant,” he explained.

As well, Mr. Baird noted, Diane Finley was doing some things and would soon be reading some things.

“The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has a substantial amount of work going on,” Mr. Baird continued. “A report on Canadians with disabilities will be coming to her in very short order. We are certainly prepared to continuously do more to help Canadians with disabilities.”

Mr. Rae, believing that his question had not received a response, tried it again, this time en francais. Mr. Baird stood and mostly repeated himself.

The interim Liberal now dared broaden his appeal slightly. “Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple fact that most of the tax credits that the government has introduced for all kinds of things—for sports equipment, piano lessons, whatever it may be—do not apply, are not refundable for people who do not have taxable income. There are millions of people who do not have taxable income, 9 million families,” he explained. “Why not make these tax credits refundable? In particular, why not make the tax credits refundable for those people with disabilities?”

He jabbed the air a bit here with a pointy finger and then held his hands aloft as if to plead for mercy or beg for reason or beseech the government side to see the simplicity (or some combination thereof).

“It is a very simple and basic change,” he concluded, “and a very simple question.”

Alas, again, Mr. Baird was unwilling or unprepared to answer as simply. “Mr. Speaker, this government has brought forward a substantial number of tax reductions that help all Canadians, including those Canadians with a disability. Just before Parliament we have measures to improve registered disability savings plans. The Liberals are trying to delay those initiatives from being tackled,” he ventured. “This government has brought forward the working income tax benefits. This government has brought forward substantial tax reductions. This government cuts taxes for Canadians who pay taxes, and that is, I guess, a fundamental difference from the Liberal Party.”

Of course, the magic of the simple question is that in not answering it, one only raises further questions.

The Stats. The disabled, five questions. Employment insurance, immigration and the environment, four questions. The economy, ethics and aboriginal affairs, three questions each. Pharmaceuticals and health care, two questions each. The Middle East, land mines, taxation, shipping, research, arts funding and natural resources, one question each.

]]>The Prime Minister does not often bother with any questions beyond the initial opposition leaders’ rounds. Today though, after Bob Rae had finished his three questions, Mr. Harper stood to respond to a query from the NDP’s Peter Julian. But he did so not just to respond to the official opposition (emphasis mine).

Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians found out through anonymous leaks that CNOOC has agreed to meet the federal government’s request. What request? This is the first time Canadians have heard of any request coming from the federal government on CNOOC. The government refuses to be transparent, refuses to be accountable, refuses to have respect for Canadians, so what is the government respecting of CNOOC and why is it doing it in secret? Why is it doing it behind closed doors?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, let me just address that very briefly. The Minister of Industry has been very clear. The government’s policy on these matters, while we welcome foreign investment, is to scrutinize every individual foreign investment to make sure they are in the bests interests of this country. On the one hand, the position of the NDP, as we know, is to be against all of these investments. The position of the Liberal Party, as reiterated yesterday, is to rubber-stamp every single one of them. We think Canadians expect us to examine these investments carefully and make sure they are in the best interests of Canada.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-seems-to-have-read-that-justin-trudeau-op-ed/feed/11‘They’re looking to shift the blame to Enbridge’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/theyre-looking-to-shift-the-blame-to-enbridge/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/theyre-looking-to-shift-the-blame-to-enbridge/#commentsFri, 03 Aug 2012 17:58:51 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=280876Tim Harper, Reuters and the Globe pick up on James Moore’s comments about Enbridge and the Northern Gateway pipeline.“This project will not survive scrutiny unless Enbridge takes far more …

“This project will not survive scrutiny unless Enbridge takes far more seriously their obligation to engage the public,” he told a radio show Wednesday. Mr. Moore did not agree to an interview on Thursday.

The federal government staunchly supports Northern Gateway, and the opposition New Democratic Party said Mr. Moore’s comments may have been designed to keep B.C. voters happy. “It’s damage control,” said NDP MP Peter Julian, who is the party’s natural resources critic and represents the B.C. riding of Burnaby-New Westminster. “The Conservatives have been pushing this for months, and now that opinion has turned against it in B.C., they’re looking to shift the blame to Enbridge.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/theyre-looking-to-shift-the-blame-to-enbridge/feed/9Live: A very long night for a very long billhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-a-very-long-night-for-a-very-long-bill/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-a-very-long-night-for-a-very-long-bill/#commentsWed, 13 Jun 2012 20:41:42 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=266888Welcome to Aaron Wherry's live coverage of tonight's C-38 votes

]]>Welcome to live coverage of tonight’s C-38 votes. It was expected that voting would begin around 5:30pm, but some procedural fussing about by the Liberals seems to have delayed those votes by a few hours. Stay tuned throughout the evening (and morning?) as we follow the parliamentary festivities.

4:43pm. If you’re only now tuning in, you just missed a fascinating series of points of order, during which Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux twice asked the Speaker to clarify the rules of the House (Speaker Devolin invited Mr. Lamoureux to read the standing orders) and Bob Rae objected to the Defence Minister’s earlier use of the word “mendaciousness” (Peter MacKay duly stood and withdrew the remark). The House is now at the time reserved each day for the presenting of petitions and will soon move to the final period of report stage debate on C-38.

4:51pm. The New Democrats held a photo op this afternoon to demonstrate how they were preparing for tonight’s votes. Mostly this seems to have involved Nathan Cullen removing his jacket and writing “C-38″ on a giant white pad of paper.

5:04pm. The Liberals have chosen now to discuss Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. And now there is some discussion between the Speaker, Elizabeth May and Denis Coderre about how long one can speak when responding to a question of privilege.

5:15pm. With Mr. Lamoureux still responding to Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer rises on a point of order to question Mr. Lamoureux’s point of privilege. The Speaker stands and reads the rules pertaining to questions of privilege, specifically that such interventions should be “brief and concise” and that the Speaker has the right to “terminate” the discussion. Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti rises on a point of order to object to Mr. Zimmer’s point of order. Mr. Lamoureux attempts a point of order to respond to Mr. Zimmer, but the Speaker suggests he carry on with his point of privilege, but then Mr. Coderre rises on a point of order to complain about the Speaker’s desire to move things along. The Speaker asserts his impartiality and attempts to straighten this all out, but Mr. Coderre rises on another point of order to clarify his respect for the Speaker, but also to express his desire that Mr. Lamoureux be allowed to give a full response to Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. Mr. Pacetti rises on a point of order to add his concern that Mr. Lamoureux be allowed to speak fully. The Speaker says he was merely reminding everyone of the rules and gives Mr. Lamoureux five minutes to finish and, finally, we’re now back to Mr. Lamoruex’s point of privilege.

5:30pm. The Speaker stands and calls an end to Mr. Lamoureux’s remarks and attempts to move to the last hour of report stage debate on C-38, but now Mauril Belanger is up on a separate point of privilege.

5:32pm. The Speaker cuts off Mr. Belanger to move to deferred votes on two opposition motions and one private member’s bill. MPs have 30 minutes to report to the chamber.

6:33pm. Conservative MP Roxanne James’ private member’s bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to “to allow the Commissioner to designate an offender as a ‘vexatious complainant’ when the offender files multiple complaints or grievances that are ordinarily of a vexatious or frivolous nature or not made in good faith” passes at report stage by a vote of 194-107. The House now moves to an hour of debate of C-305, Olivia Chow’s private member’s bill on a national transit strategy.

7:44pm. The Speaker has just now ruled on Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. He found no reason to intervene. (I’ll have the full text up shortly.) The House has now moved to debate of C-38. The latest guess about when voting will begin is midnight.

8:46pm. After going for dinner (the caesar salad at Brixtons is pretty good and you can’t beat the service), I’ve taken up my spot in the House. Debate has concluded and the Speaker is now reading all of the 871 amendments into the record. Each group of amendments is then subject to an oral vote—the opposition MPs yelling “yea” and the government MPs yelling “nay.” The Speaker then judges which side has shouted most, but so long as five MPs then stand, the group of amendments is set aside for a recorded vote. The latest guess is that those votes will start around 11:15pm.

8:49pm. Let the record show that there are eight spectators in the south gallery to witness this reading and shouting.

8:58pm. Deputy Speaker Denise Savoie just asked the House for permission to dispense—ie. to stop reading. She did not find unanimous agreement. There are about three dozen MPs in the House, though it’s not clear how many—if any—are listening. The Liberals are heckling Conservative MP Paul Calandra. Most of those present are fiddling with laptops or tablets. Conservative MP Lois Brown is reading a book.

9:02pm. Mauril Belanger has just risen on a point of order to ask that Deputy Speaker Savoie make sure to read the number of each motion before proceeding so that MPs can follow along.

We will be standing up for transparency and accountability. We will be standing up for environmental protection and our fisheries communities. We will be standing up for retirement security and health-care funding. We will spend 24 straight hours — or more — standing up on behalf of millions of Canadians who sent us to Ottawa to vote against this bill.

9:25pm. Mr. Belanger on another point of order. He seems to think Deputy Speaker Savoie missed something. She duly rereads the motion in question. We’re at motion 119 now. Only 700 or so to go.

9:37pm. I timed him. Deputy Speaker Devolin just read five motions in a single minute. We just passed motion 164.

9:41pm. Mr. Belanger rises on a point of order to say Deputy Speaker Devolin is speaking too fast for the interpreters. Deputy Speaker Devolin seems to have responded by slowing down. It would seem fair to conclude that the Liberals are quite eager to slow this process down as much as possible.

9:49pm. Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner just came in and loaded her desk with food, possibly candy of some kind.

10:09pm. Just passed motion 300.

10:27pm. A few dozen Conservatives just streamed in to lend their voices to a series of oral votes. In the Speaker’s judgment, the nays won all of them, but the requisite number of opposition MPs rose to demand recorded votes. Some MPs are quite enthusiastic yellers.

Speaker reading motion 300 of 871. Since Speaker started at 8:42pm, Shuttle would have orbited Earth once.Go Speaker!

10:47pm. Attendance in the south gallery momentarily peaked at 20, then a few people left. Deputy Speaker Devolin was treated to a standing ovation as he hit motion 500. He wisely did not stop reading to soak in the applause, but kept going.

10:52pm. Elizabeth May rises on a point of order to note that Deputy Speaker Devolin said “the” when he should have said “any” in his reading of a motion. Deputy Speaker Devolin duly corrects himself.

10:58pm. Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton swaps in for Deputy Speaker Devolin and Deputy Speaker Devolin receives a round of applause. Mr. Garneau rises on a point of order to note that Deputy Speaker Stanton forgot to read the motion number. We’re on motion 547 now.

11:03pm. The few dozen MPs in the House are variously lounging about. Watching the House at these moments feels something like watching a zoo exhibit, observing the parliamentarian in his natural habitat. One half expects a zookeeper to come by and toss hunks of raw meat or fish into the enclosure.

11:12pm. Strange things happen after dark here. The NDP’s Christine Moore and Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino, frequent QP opponents, are sitting together and chatting at the far end of the room.

11:27pm. We just passed motion 700. Pat Martin tweets a picture of the scene in the opposition lobby.

11:34pm. Attendance in the south gallery is now at 35. It is actually just about half full. And the reading of motion 800 just received a round of applause from the floor. Momentum is building. In other news, I have been officially reprimanded for my removing my jacket while in the press gallery. I kept my top hat and monocle in place, but apparently that’s not sufficient.

11:57pm. Deputy Speaker Stanton finishes reading motion 871 into the record and receives a round of applause. The nays are now winning a series of oral votes, despite very loud and long attempts by Peter Julian to persuade the Speaker of the yea side. Daryl Kramp and Candice Hoeppner have brought pillows. Rona Ambrose has a Hudson Bay blanket.

12:05am. The Prime Minister strolls in. He has neither pillow nor blanket. He is periodically lending his voice to the shouting though. An NDP MP just tried to start the wave.

12:20am. The yea side has actually won a couple here. Meanwhile, there is a stuffed animal dog in Devinder Shory’s seat.

12:26am. After a full 20 minutes of yelling at regular intervals, the House now proceeds to the deferred recorded divisions. The bells are ringing to bring the MPs to the House. A mere 24 hours or so of actual voting remains.

12:45am. If you step outside the House, it is June 14. Inside the House, it remains June 13. The House does not recognize the normal laws of space and time and so it will remain June 13 until the parliamentary day is concluded.

So you’re out on the town in Ottawa? Leave the pub, come to parliament, and watch us stand up for you and for democracy.

In other news, Michelle Rempel appears to have brought play-doh into the House.

12:54am. Leisure Watch. Peter Van Loan is reading The Best Laid Plans. Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield is playing solitaire on an iPad, as is his parliamentary secretary Randy Kamp.

12:58am. The whips, Gordon O’Connor and Nycole Turmel, walk in to begin the vote. The NDP tries to start the wave again.

1:00am. Thomas Mulcair rises to begin the first of 159 votes.

1:03am. Stephen Harper rises to lead the votes against the amendment.

1:05am. Hmm. We’ve only just noticed that the 11 Conservative MPs seated on the opposition side are not present. Neither is independent MP Peter Goldring. Perhaps the first shift as the government MPs split up House duty.

1:07am. The first motion is defeated 150-133.

1:14am. The second motion is defeated 149-133. It’s unclear how or where the Conservatives lost a vote.

1:19am. Much of the government frontbench, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Finance Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister, are catching up on paperwork.

1:22am. The third motion is defeated 149-133.

1:26am. The clerk calling out the votes just confused Lisa Raitt with Rona Ambrose. Already the foundations of our democracy are beginning to struggle under the strain of this.

1:29am. The fourth motion is defeated 149-133. The previously absent Conservatives just filed in and the next dozen just filed out.

1:32am. Conservative MP Merv Tweed, head in hand, seems to be trying to sleep at his desk between votes.

1:35am. NDP MP Dan Harris seems to have put together an impressive supply of candy.

1:37am. The fifth motion is defeated 150-133, with David Wilks casting the second last vote against.

1:44am. The sixth vote goes to the Conservatives 150-134. Not sure how the opposition picked up a vote.

1:47am. The New Democrats seem to be applauding random Conservatives as they vote. Not sure why. They seem to find it very amusing though.

1:53am. The four Bloc MPs meant to be in favour of the seventh vote, but missed their turn and so the record is now being clarified. The seventh vote goes 248-34, with the Conservatives and New Democrats voting against.

1:56am. With that, the New Democrats are now slow-voting, rising methodically one-by-one to delay the process instead of being on their feet and ready for the clerk to note them. In other news, Conservative MP Mike Lake just snuck a sip of Red Bull.

2:03am. The heckling moves online.

Bob Rae: During the vote, reading Gwyn on Sir John A “a public man should have no resentments” – wish Mr Harper would learn.

James Moore: If we’re quoting former PM’s: “The silent majority does not make a lot of noise; it is content to make history.” -P.E.Trudeau

2:06am. Eighth vote goes to the Conservatives 149-134. Another dozen Conservatives slipped out after the vote. The New Democrats seem to have lost about a dozen as well.

2:11am. Conservative MP Patrick Brown appears to have passed out on his desk.

2:16am. Mr. Brown recovered in time to vote. He is now resting his head on a pillow.

2:17am. 148-124. That vote took about 10 minutes. A smattering of New Democrats just filed out to jeers and moans from the Conservatives. “What about the fish?” asks John Baird.

2:21am. Conservative MP Dick Harris, necktie untied and hung around his neck, just got into it with Nathan Cullen. A Conservative voice, apparently unimpressed with the NDP’s slow-voting, loudly suggested the New Democrats looked “constipated.” Dan Harris advised the Conservatives that things were just getting started. A Conservative voice advised the New Democrats that “Canadians are watching.” Meanwhile, attendance in the south gallery is down to four.

2:29am. Vote #10 concludes and vote #11 begins. The NDP is keeping to its pace. Jamie Nicholls seems particularly concerned about rising as slowly as possible.

2:35am. All three party leaders are still here and the New Democrats and Conservatives continue to insist on applauding theirs when they rise to vote.

2:39am. Vote #11 goes 148-115. Another Conservative shift change and both Bob Rae and Stephen Harper exit. Thomas Mulcair is the last party leader standing.

3:01am. Vote #13 goes 134-110. Scott Brison rises on a point of order to ensure his vote was counted. Mr. Mulcair rises even slower on vote #14. He’s now handing out food from a Ziploc bag to his deputy leaders. Some MPs seem to be concerned about visible displays of food and prefer to sneak bites or handfuls while holding the food under their desks.

3:26am. Lisa Raitt is watching Hell’s Kitchen on her iPad. I think I missed that episode.

3:33am. Vote #16 concludes with the House seeming a bit sleepy, or at least sleepier.. And on that note, I retire to bed. We’ll pick this up in the morning to see how our democracy is faring and whether Mr. Harris has finished his spaceship.

4:05am. Post-script. Just as I was exiting the House, some confusion seems to have resulted in the Liberals failing to stand in sufficient number—five—to force a recorded vote after an oral vote was taken. The Liberals proceeded to vote slowly the next time around, followed by points of order from Mr. Rae and Mr. Coderre on the issue of MPs moving about the House during votes, including deputy Government House leader Tom Lukiwski engaging in a conversation with the Speaker. The Speaker seems now to have put things back on track, though both the New Democrats and Liberals are now slow-voting.

4:22am. The Liberals seem back at a normal voting pace. And with that I really am going to bed. Goodnight.

10:46am. Up and refreshed after six hours of sleep. I see that our democracy continues to churn. Phew. I feared some kind of resolution would be found while I had my eyes closed. The latest vote goes 144-101. According to the studious Pierre-Luc Dusseault, that was #63. Just less than a hundred votes to go. And the New Democrats seem to be voting a bit faster now.

Slipped out a few votes ago to brush my teeth. I’m a new woman! #omnibudget, watch out.

11:42am. In case you were wondering, since it is still Wednesday in the House, Thursday’s schedule is irrelevant, there’ll be no Question Period today or anything else. Assuming the voting wraps up around midnight, the House will adjourn and will resume business on Friday with Thursday having been skipped.

11:45am. Some confusion over voting from the Bloc Quebecois, in terms of who voted when and in what way. Bob Rae stands on a point of order and wonders if we might redo last year’s election.

11:47am. Oh missed this just a few moments ago: Nathan Cullen stood and asked for unanimous consent to pause voting at 2:15pm for Question Period. The Conservatives declined. Mr. Rae is unimpressed.

During the Reform Party 3 day forced vote on the Nishga Treaty, they asked to keep question period. Cons today say no. Hypocrites

12:26pm. I suggested to Dan Harris that he donate his lego Tie Interceptor to the Library of Parliament as an artifact of this moment in democracy. Mr. Harris seems concerned that that would detract from his own collection.

12:38pm. Last night’s ruling on Nathan Cullen’s question of privilege is now posted here, along with my own amateur analysis. We are coming up on the 12-hour mark, last night’s voting having commenced at 1am. Mr. Cullen and opposition whip Nycole Turmel are to speak with reporters at 1pm.

1:58pm. Unshaven and still wearing yesterday’s outfit (grey suit, black tie, red shirt), Mr. Cullen emerged a short while ago to report that New Democrats are “feeling good.”

“We’re also very conscious that as we go through all these votes, these are not just symbols, these are real things that are happening to the laws that guide Canada, be it the protection for our environment that is being reduced, be it employment insurance that is being lost or pensions that are taken away, or the very fact that democracy is being undermined by this government…

“Our point is this, that if we had simply allowed this government to pass this bill without any inconvenience at all, the lesson they would have taken away and Canadians would have taken away is that Parliament is less important than it really is. We must hold government to account. That is our job. That is what Canadians sent us here to do. Not just New Democrats, but I would argue Conservatives as well.”

The New Democrats still think they might be able to rush enough of their MPs into the House to win a vote at some point when the Conservative numbers ebb.

2:12pm. Diane Ablonczy, seemingly passed out on her desk, just roused herself to applaud for the Prime Minister as he led Conservative votes. Having cast her own vote, she has collapsed again on her desk.

2:19pm. The stuffed animal dog is now occupying Conservative MP John Weston’s seat.

2:24pm. Dick Harris still hasn’t tied his tie.

2:31pm. Ms. Ablonczy rouses to vote then returns her head to the pillow on her desk. Meanwhile, Conservative MP Harold Albrecht is visiting with one of his grandchildren in the visitors’ gallery.

2:37pm. A couple Conservative backbenchers have their faces buried in pillows. Probably a suffocation risk. Someone should check to see that they’re still breathing.

2:43pm. John Weston has returned and the stuffed dog is now in Rodney Weston’s spot. It’s unclear if the dog’s vote is being counted each time through.

2:54pm. The Conservatives are beginning to heckle about the absence of Thomas Mulcair. The NDP leader was apparently here from 1am until 10am, before taking a break. There’s been another shift change on the government side and the Prime Minister has taken his break.

3:03pm. Peter MacKay just used his BlackBerry to take a picture of Deepak Obhrai, who is sleeping with the aid of one of those neck pillows. Everyone is regressing to their college years. If Mr. Obhrai doesn’t wake up soon, there’s a good chance people will start writing things in marker on his face.

3:08pm. John Baird seems to be trying to convince Paul Dewar to go grab a drink.

3:17pm. The International Association of Machinists is calling on opposition MPs to walk out on these votes. I believe that would actually just bring this to an end. Without any opposition MPs in the House, the government would likely move to apply the previous count to all subsequent votes and this would be over.

3:21pm. Elizabeth May hasn’t missed a vote yet. Via email, she tells me she’s hoping she can hold on to make all of them.

4:10pm. I slipped out for about 40 minutes and apparently missed a lone protestor who shouted shame at the Conservatives and was promptly dragged out. The New Democrats are now standing and applauding their way through Vote #102.

4:13pm. There is an empty bag of Doritos in the seat normally occupied by Bal Gosal, minister of state for sports.

4:17pm. The House gives a clerk a standing ovation for calling his first vote. A page just delivered a stuffed toy cat to Government whip Gordon O’Connor. Now the Prime Minister is investigating the cat. Mr. O’Connor seems charmed by the gift.

4:21pm. I’ll be on CTV’s Power Play today at precisely 5:14pm. Watch and see if I still possess the ability to speak in complete sentences.

5:31pm. Thomas Mulcair returns to the House and receives a standing ovation from both the Conservatives and New Democrats.

5:33pm. Conservative MP Patrick Brown is napping again on his desk.

5:37pm. The Conservatives seem quite concerned with figuring out which party leader has been in the House for the most votes. Elizabeth May has been here for every vote. So apparently she gets to be prime minister now.

5:53pm. Mr. Baird just asked Senator Marjory LeBreton, seated in the gallery, if she would order him a pizza. Meanwhile, there are two staffers in the NDP leader’s gallery who seem to be taking attendance on clipboards.

6:54pm. Nycole Turmel rises on a point of order to suggest Conservative MP Royal Galipeau was not in his seat in time to participate in the last vote. Mr. Galipeau says he was in his seat, but NDP MP Guy Caron was not in his seat. Mr. Caron rises and acknowledges that he might not have been in his seat in time and so if his vote has to be disqualified, so be it.

6:58pm. The stuffed dog is now perched quite prominently on Rodney Weston’s desk.

7:17pm. Joe Oliver on a point of order. He suggests two members of the opposition made a Nazi salute in the direction of the prime minister while the Conservatives were applauding the start of another vote. Denis Coderre stands and says he did no such thing and does not want the opposition punished en masse. A Bloc MP agrees with both Mr. Oliver and Mr. Coderre, but suggests Mr. Oliver should identify the MPs he is referring to. Liberal MP Wayne Easter says no Nazi salute was made and tries to clarify the gesture involved. John Baird leads a chant of “shame!” from the government side. Deputy Speaker Savoie says a Nazi salute would be offensive to everyone in the House and decides to move on.

7:25pm. The government side earlier presented Labour Minister Lisa Raitt and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver to reporters for comment on the proceedings.

Ms. Raitt was very concerned with all the time these votes were taking.

The novelty of staying up for 24 hours really isn’t a novel thing for a woman with kids, quite frankly. I’ve done this. And I guess the point is that this isn’t a slumber party and this is not cramming for your final exams by staying up all night. This is a very serious matter. This is the economic performance of the country. And it’s a serious issue and my concern is that I do believe the opposition is making a mockery of the process. And the reason being is, quite frankly, the budget will pass. We have the numbers, we have the votes. And the process is going to continue. And our EAP, our Economic Action Plan, actually reflects the mandate that we did receive from the Canadian public. We talked about this very clearly in the election last year and today is the implementation of it. What we’ve seen in the past number of hours, since last night at 12:55am, and indeed from yesterday afternoon is a lot of delay tactics from the opposition, a lot of political games and a lot of different methods of making this inevitable situation go longer than it necessarily has to. But we are here to ensure that we’re creating jobs, that we’re promoting growth and we have the long-term plan for the country and make sure that we have prosperity … Our government has to be ready to act, just like we were ready to act in 2008. So what we see today is the opposition standing in the way of us being able to move on with the Economic Action Plan 2012.

Mr. Oliver was sort of also concerned.

We just want to get on with it, while, of course, the opposition is entitled, in a parliamentary democracy, to engage in these sorts of tactics, we find it, you know, a bit of a waste of time, in a sense, but it’s time that they’re entitled to spend, but really the concern that I personally have is that they should be using these tactics to oppose a critical piece of legislation, which will advance Canadian security and prosperity for decades, for generations, to come.

The ministers were then asked whether they were suggesting the extent of today’s votes were going to impact the country. Ms. Raitt clarified that the message was that the government would prefer the opposition move at a normal pace to finish these votes so that routine parliamentary business can resume. The reporter asked again to specify the problem. Mr. Oliver then interjected.

Well, let me be clear here, I wasn’t saying that economic growth in Canada and jobs were being jeopardized by an extra 24 hours. That wasn’t the point. What would jeopardize the growth is the inability to pass the legislation or the requirement to undermine its major thrusts. I just pointed out that the opposition have every right to spend the time, to force us to go through over 150 individual votes, to stand up very slowly and sit down very slowly. I guess they’re trying to make a point and the population will decide whether that point is memorable and whether that point is appropriate. I’m not trying to overstate that, the fact that we didn’t get any sleep for the last 24 hours is not really the point at all. And frankly, I don’t think I’d want to do this on a regular basis, but the morale is actually great in our caucus. You know, some of us may have a hoarse throat at this point, but that’s not the issue at all. The issue is we’ve got this very important piece legislation we want to get through and somehow they want to block it.

It was then suggested that perhaps all this attention on all this bill was a positive for the government. Ms. Raitt seemed to agree with this point, suggesting that a “clear delineation” was being established between government and opposition. A reporter then asked the ministers to square Mr. Oliver’s perspective with Ms. Raitt’s perspective, was this legitimate part of the process or gamesmanship. Ms. Raitt went first.

What it is is a reflection on the attitude of the parties in the opposition. We take the economy very seriously and they’re going to play games and try to delay and try to stall something that is absolutely inevitable in a majority government … They always have a choice to work on behalf of the economy and work together for the country, when they know the reality of what exactly is happening and they know the economy is fragile and they know that the world is in difficult circumstances and we have to be ready for it. So they always a choice and their choice is to play games and to use tactics and that’s unacceptable.

Ms. Raitt then turned and left. Mr. Oliver remained.

The fact that they have a right doesn’t mean it is right. And they have to make a decision and in the end the population will decide whether their tactic is appropriate. I don’t think, frankly, that this particular tactic is the biggest thing in the world. I don’t think that’s what we should really be focusing on too much. At the end of the day, when an election comes up, the population will judge this government on what it has done for Canadians, what its plan has been, what its accomplishments have been and what the legislation has pushed forward will be. And they will forget about whether it took, you know, we sat in the House for 24 hours. That’s not going to be remembered three and a half years from now. It may not even be remembered for more than a few days.

7:27pm. Ms. Raitt also confirmed that she’s managed to watch five episodes of Hell’s Kitchen.

9:36pm. After going for dinner, I’m back in the House for the exciting conclusion. Apparently while I was away, Gordon O’Connor asked if the final 20 votes might be skipped. Nathan Cullen said only if the government would agree to hold Question Period instead. Agreement could not be found, so the votes continue. We just finished Vote #144. Fifteen or so to go.

9:39pm. The yeas were just declared winners on an oral vote. Alas, sufficient MPs stood to force a recorded vote and so now that amendment will be defeated.

9:41pm. John Baird just asked Gordon O’Connor for a “hall pass.”

9:44pm. Dick Harris still hasn’t tied his tie.

10:02pm. Five NDP MPs have apparently been present for every single vote: Fin Donnelly, Jinny Sims, Mathieu Ravignat, Matthew Dube and Jasbir Sandhu. On the government side, it’s believed Peter Van Loan, who has missed only one vote, has the best attendance.

10:08pm. Midway through the ninth-last vote. John Weston has some incredible bed head.

10:11pm. Liberal MP Geoff Regan rises on a point of order to note that the clerk calling out the vote confused him with Wayne Easter.

10:16pm. The New Democrats are back to slow-voting. The Conservatives are jeering and groaning. This vote has to do with the Kyoto Implementation Act.

10:19pm. Shelly Glover just seemed to heckle the press gallery with a request that one of us write about the NDP’s methodical approach to voting.

10:21pm. NDP MP Jean Rousseau just stood to vote and turned his back to the House.

10:22pm. The Liberal and Bloc MPs are now standing and waiting for the New Democrats to finish.

10:24pm. Just before this vote, Francoise Boivin rose on a point of order that was difficult to hear from the gallery. Her argument apparently was that since the legality of Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto is before the courts, out of respect for the separation of powers, it would have appropriate to put this issue in abeyance until the courts can rule. The Speaker dismissed the complaint and moved on.

10:28pm. Megan Leslie just managed a fist pump while yelling “yea” on that oral vote.

10:30pm. The consensus in the press gallery is that if you’re PVRing this at home, set it to stop around 11:30.

10:38pm. Once again fighting the law of gravity, Mr. MacKay is trying to sleep in a sitting position. Oh wait, he’s up and he’s clapping and he’s cast his vote. Back in his seat and, after flirting with a magazine, he’s nodding off again.

10:41pm. Mr. MacKay’s head droops, then snaps back up. Lisa Raitt is snoozing on her desk. Denis Lebel is holding his head in his hands. The cabinet seems to be coming apart. Mr. Harper continues to go over his paperwork.

10:48pm. The NDP’s Pierre-Luc Dusseault seems to be the official record keeper of this day.

10:52pm. Various Conservatives heckle the NDP’s Jinny Sims to get off the phone. Michael Chong wags his finger to indicate that that is not allowed.

11:14pm. Nathan Cullen rises on a point of order to thank the House staff, unanimous standing ovation ensues.

11:15pm. Now the vote on the main bill at report stage. Conservatives yell “yea,” New Democrats yell “nay.” Stephen Harper leads the Conservatives and receives a standing ovation and some whistling. Huge cheer for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

11:20pm. Thomas Mulcair leads the New Democrats, standing ovation and several “woohs.” The New Democrats continue applauding in unison as the votes are called. Charlie Angus briefly raises a fist in the air. Jamie Nicholls puts his hand on his heart, looks to the ceiling and mouths the word “Jack.” Huge cheer as the last New Democrat is counted.

11:23pm. Now the Liberal’s turn to cheer. Marc Garneau hugs Bob Rae.

11:24pm. Elizabeth May stands to cast the last opposition vote and cries as the opposition MPs stand to salute her.

11:25pm. Conservatives cheer as the final result is counted. New Democrats thump their desks and chant “2015” en francais.

11:26pm. The Speaker moves to adjournment proceedings, the debate that concludes each sitting day. Christine Moore stands to lead the debate. Cheers of “Har! Per! Har! Per!” can be heard coming from the government lobby.

11:29pm. Ms. Moore is hectoring the government side about the F-35 procurement.

11:30pm. Chris Alexander offers the government response. Chants of “2015” can be heard from the opposition lobby.

11:34pm. Let it be noted that there are four spectators in the south gallery.

11:35pm. Ms. Moore suggests the government is not meeting its commitments in promising to table new cost estimates for the F-35 in the fall.

11:37pm. Mr. Alexander says an independent audit will take a few months. Now to a discussion of Air Canada.

11:39pm. The New Democrat offering the official opposition’s comments isn’t standing at his assigned and I confess I can’t remember who this is.

11:42pm. Oh, it’s Mike Sullivan. Kellie Leitch is offering the government’s response. This is essentially a debate over government intervention in collective bargaining.

11:44pm. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted and the House stands adjourned until 10am tomorrow. The calendar in the middle of the room still reads June 13.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-a-very-long-night-for-a-very-long-bill/feed/34The Commons: Peter Kent promises two hours of enlightenment, delivers only onehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-peter-kent-promises-two-hours-of-enlightenment-delivers-only-one/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-peter-kent-promises-two-hours-of-enlightenment-delivers-only-one/#commentsThu, 31 May 2012 21:39:12 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=262759The Environment Minister is only so generous with his time

“Mr. Speaker, former Conservative fisheries minister Thomas Siddon is again sounding the alarm on the Conservatives’ Trojan Horse bill,” the NDP’s Nathan Cullen reported this afternoon. “Last night he testified that he deplored this attack on environmental protection and that rushing these changes through is ‘not becoming of a Conservative government.’ His message to the Prime Minister was clear, ‘Take your time, get it right.’ Will the Prime Minister take the advice of his Conservative colleague? Will he split this reckless bill and allow for proper study?”

The government would eventually take to quoting something Mr. Siddon had said in 1986 in an attempt to cancel out what Mr. Siddon said last night, but the Prime Minister opted here to boast only of his own government’s magnanimousness. “Mr. Speaker, in fact, the particular set of changes in the economic action plan will have more committee study than any budget bill in recent history by quite a magnitude,” Mr. Harper claimed.

This much would likely not have satisfied the a certain former Reform MP and it did not seem to satisfy the current New Democrat MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley. “Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic for New Democrats to have to defend the environmental record of a former Mulroney Conservative government against this very new and different breed of Conservatives,” Mr. Cullen sighed while wagging his finger at the government side.

A moment later, it was Peggy Nash’s turn. “Mr. Speaker,” she reported, “Canadians are looking for real leadership on the environment and they are not finding it from the Conservatives.” In this case, Ms. Nash was concerned not with the former fisheries minister, but with the current one, as well as the present ministers of the environment and natural resources.

It would seem, according to Ms. Nash, that Messrs Ashfield, Kent and Oliver are refusing to return to the copious committee study of which Mr. Harper now boasts.

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague forgets that on the first day that the subcommittee met to consider Bill C-38, all three ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Natural Resources and myself met,” Environment Minister Peter Kent scolded. “We provided two hours of enlightenment to an opposition that was hard challenged to come up with questions material to the subcommittee’s work.”

To account for the amount of enlightenment is subjective, but time can be measured objectively. In this case, the ministers actually appeared for one hour (on short notice). Subtracting the time required for the ministers to make their opening statements, half of that time was allotted for questions. And subtracting the time required for Conservative MPs to pose their friendly queries, less than 20 minutes total was provided for opposition MPs to quiz the three ministers (or less than seven minutes per minister).

But lest that not be enough, Mr. Kent claimed at the time a willingness to return. “If the sub-committee decides to call us again,” he told the Globe, “I would be delighted to come.”

Alas, the Conservatives on the committee are now apparently refusing to let Mr. Kent further enlighten.

“Mr. Speaker, at the C-38 hearings, the Conservative majority is pushing through dozens of pieces of legislation with little study. With 753 clauses, that is just three minutes of study per clause,” Ms. Nash offered with her supplementary. “Now even former Tory ministers are testifying that Conservatives railroading these changes through is wrong. Last night it got even worse. The Conservatives voted to block bringing ministers back to testify. Why will they not come back? Is the Minister of Natural Resources afraid he will be called on his boast about drinking from tailing ponds?”

In a touching gesture, Ms. Nash picked up her glass of water from its perch on her desk and held it aloft in a toast to Mr. Oliver.

For whatever reason, it was decided that Ted Menzies, the minister of state for finance, would handle this.

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the question because it has just been answered by the Minister of the Environment,” Mr. Menzies confessed, “who actually, along with his two other colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Natural Resources, actually appeared as witnesses. That is the important part. They have provided information. They have answered questions.”

Let the record show that the three ministers did sit and did speak and did respond when presented with questions. On those basic tests of human ability, let their be no doubt that they passed. The rest is details.

“We understand that at the subcommittee last night,” Mr. Menzies continued, “the critics responsible for those two areas did not even show up.”

“Ohhh!” the Conservatives mocked.

Of course, the critics in questions—Megan Leslie and Peter Julian—are right now in Alberta with NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, a trip the Conservatives have been quite keen of late to see Mr. Mulcair take. And, of course, Mr. Menzies surely knew that. But of the basic test of existence that Messrs Kent, Ashfield and Oliver have obviously met, Ms. Leslie and Mr. Julian apparently failed last night.

The Stats. Employment, six questions. The budget and fisheries, five questions each. Military procurement and ethics, four questions each. Mining, the environment, Syria, VIA Rail and regional development, two questions each. Air cargo, the oil industry, terrorism, aboriginal affairs and historical artifacts, one questione ach.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-peter-kent-promises-two-hours-of-enlightenment-delivers-only-one/feed/5The late showhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-late-show/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-late-show/#commentsWed, 16 May 2012 14:48:35 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=258867Starting around 9:30pm last night, the House of Commons spent four hours considering the government’s environmental policy in committee of the whole. The transcript starts here.
In the early morning…

Peter Julian: I will move on now to the accusations made about Canadian environmental charities. The minister made a claim around criminal activities because that is what money laundering is. He made the claim on April 28, repeated it on May 1 and again on May 3 in this House. Tonight he has responded that he simply does not have any proof of criminal activity. Would the minister retract the term and retract the claims that he made on three occasions in the House of Commons?

Peter Kent: The short answer, Mr. Chair, is no. Our government appreciates the great service that charities across the spectrum provide in adding and supplementing in areas where government cannot necessarily provide services. Charities provide great support in areas of culture, the arts and, indeed, in health care and academia. My points were referenced and included the environmental non-governmental organizations. My remarks reflected our government’s concern about a small number of agencies in Canada with charitable status which, as evidence accumulates almost by the day, were putting their charitable status at risk by behaviour and by actions that were in violation of CRA regulation.

Peter Julian: Mr. Chair, we simply need to ask the minister even understands the definition of money laundering. That, of course, is a criminal activity. What he has said tonight is that he has no proof of any criminal activity from these environmental charities…

Peter Kent: First, Mr. Chair, the term that I used was a figure of speech. I could have used greenwashing. I could have used whitewashing and, as I have said in this House, I could have used shell game or three card monte, which is also an offence under the Canadian Criminal Code. However, these are only offences if criminal proceeds are involved. It is a figure of speech. I am delighted that it caught the attention of those charities that may have been compromising their status. I am glad if it has caught the attention of the opposition and I am glad it has caught the attention of the Canadian public. I would hope that those charitable organization, which do have the benefit of charitable status, will conform with CRA regulation.

]]>The Scene. Thomas Mulcair challenged the government side to live up to the principles Stephen Harper once championed and so John Baird stood and claimed a different high road altogether.

“Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and this government are focused like a laser on the economy,” he assured the House. “They are focused on economic growth, job creation and not on partisan games.”

The Foreign Affairs Minister proceeded then to lament that the NDP’s Peter Julian had spoken for too long in response to the Finance Minister’s budget speech.

A moment later, Bob Rae stood to review the budget bill one clause at a time. “Mr. Speaker, under these proposed budget changes, the Inspector General of CSIS will be gone,” he reviewed from a piece of paper he held in front of him. “The Centre for Rights and Democracy will be gone. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy will be gone. The First Nations Statistical Institute will be gone. The Governance Institute will be gone. The National Aboriginal Health Organization will be gone. The National Council of Welfare will be gone, environmental assessment will be gutted, Parks Canada will be gutted and old age security will be gutted.”

There was some degree of mumbling and grumbling from the government side. Mr. Rae proceeded to his point. “These are basic protections for Canadians. These are basic ways in which Canadians have rights and governments do not have all the rights,” he explained. “When will the government learn it is taking the wrong path?”

The question was rather rhetorical and the answer surpassed the question in this regard.

“Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party knows that there is another path. We could let spending get out of control. We could see Canada become the welfare capital of the world. We could see unemployment skyrocket,” Mr. Baird mused. “That is his record as premier of Ontario.”

Having finished with this reading from Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, the minister might’ve returned to his seat, confident that an easy point had been scored. But it got worse.

“The member opposite talks about the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,” Mr. Baird continued. “It has tabled more than 10 reports encouraging a carbon tax. Now we know why the Liberal Party holds that organization so dearly, because it truly wants to bring in a carbon tax on every family in this country. Those of us on this side of the House will not let them do it.”

Mr. Rae tried again. Mr. Baird went further.

“Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected?” he begged. “That is a message the Liberal Party just will not accept. It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families.”

It has been well known for some time that the introduction of a carbon tax would, indisputably and objectively, “screw everybody.” But now the murderous truth is revealed. There’s no telling how many families in British Columbia have already been killed.

Or perhaps the minister misspoke. (If one knows the talking points, as one should by now, one can see where the minister meant to say that a carbon tax would merely “kill Canadian jobs.”)

The roundtable was, in fact, created by the government of Brian Mulroney (a government that was aided by a young ministerial staffer named John Baird). As the roundtable’s founding chairman, Mr. Mulroney appointed David Johnston, that kindly grandfather who presently occupies Rideau Hall. And it was Johnston who, shortly after becoming the Governor General at Stephen Harper’s behest, praised the roundtable for “undertaking exhaustive research, bringing together diverse interests, rallying the brightest minds and providing unbiased advice to governments.”

In 2009, when current Conservative MP Robert Sopuck was a board member, the roundtable actually proposed that the country pursue cap-and-trade. A year earlier, as luck would have it, the Conservative party had promised to pursue a North American cap-and-trade regime. And in September 2009, Jim Prentice lobbied for the Alberta government’s support to pursue a national system. Luckily, we now know—thanks to the investigative work of Mr. Baird—that cap-and-trade is the same thing as a carbon tax (at least when cap-and-trade is proposed by someone holding the title of opposition leader).

Pressed to explain himself after Question Period, Mr. Baird hinted that he was privy to the secret plans of the Liberal party. In having referenced the National Roundtable’s report, he sought, he said, “to draw the link between” the Liberals’ “private desire to reclaim their carbon tax mantle.”

But what of the National Roundtable’s encouragement in this regard? Mr. Baird was asked whether “ideological differences with the roundtable” had, in a reporter’s words, “put the final nail in its coffin.”

“Listen, we appointed the board,” Mr. Baird confessed, “so if that was the case, I just don’t see that.”

So then it is not that the National Roundtable had advocated for a carbon tax, but that such advocacy might’ve leant assistance to some secret Liberal plan to do harm (directly or indirectly) to Canadian families. Thankfully the National Roundtable will soon be no more. Hug your family members tonight and say a prayer of thanks.

The Stats. The budget, military procurement and Libya, five questions each. Agriculture, four questions. Old Age Security and ethics, three questions. Immigration, telecommunications and science, two questions each. Aboriginal affairs, veterans, economic development, foreign aid, food safety, the oil industry, infrastructure and prisons, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/ndp-celebrate-1-year-anniversary-of-becoming-official-opposition/feed/2A scouting report on Team Mulcairhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-scouting-report-on-team-mulcair/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-scouting-report-on-team-mulcair/#commentsFri, 20 Apr 2012 12:30:19 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=253704Here again is the roster for Thomas Mulcair’s shadow cabinet. What to make of it? Here are several observations.
-First, the obviously big promotions go to Megan Leslie (who stays…

]]>Here again is the roster for Thomas Mulcair’s shadow cabinet. What to make of it? Here are several observations.

-First, the obviously big promotions go to Megan Leslie (who stays with environment, but becomes a deputy leader) and Nathan Cullen (who becomes House leader). Both are confident, impressive, fresh-faced MPs who are quick on their feet and under the age of 40 (Mr. Cullen’s 40th birthday is in July). Very interesting to see them put not just in prominent positions, but positions of leadership. Your premature, baseless, futile, wild-eyed “next leader of the NDP” speculation probably starts somewhere here.

-That’s a rather large number of people with titles: 78 out of a caucus of 102. Granted, the Conservative cabinet numbers 39 and the Prime Minister named another 28 parliamentary secretaries, so the sides are somewhat close to even. Put the two teams together and they represent just less than half of the House.

-The shadow ministers of finance, justice, human resources, transport, aboriginal affairs, public works, industry, immigration and the environment—nine of the top files—are women.

-Peter Julian seemed to step to the fore in the wake of Mr. Mulcair’s election. The day after the budget, Mr. Julian was given five consecutive questions in QP (off the top of my head, I’m not sure that in my five years here I’ve seen anyone but an opposition leader, rising at the start of QP, afforded that many opportunities in a row). And, of course, he then dominated the budget debate. In this new shadow cabinet he moves from finance to natural resources. Which probably says something about both the prominence that file is going to take on and how much more we’ll be hearing from Mr. Julian.

-If finance is the top issue, Ms. Nash will be continue to be among the most prominent NDP MPs (she was also finance critic under Jack Layton). And presumably that means she’ll be near the forefront as the NDP tries to make an economic case for itself going forward.

-Ruth Ellen Brosseau becomes deputy critic for agriculture. Another step on the way to her becoming prime minister.

-Matthew Kellway and Christine Moore have their mandate to pester Julian Fantino renewed. Jack Harris returns to defence with the minister struggling. For at least as long as the F-35 is a matter of concern, that trio figures to be prominent.

-The English-French team of Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice on ethics is also maintained.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-scouting-report-on-team-mulcair/feed/20Peter Julian’s one-man showhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/peter-julians-one-man-show/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/peter-julians-one-man-show/#commentsTue, 03 Apr 2012 17:45:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=250313The NDP finance critic officially began his response to the budget with a few remarks shortly before 5pm last Thursday. The House then adjourned.
Mr. Julian picked up again on…

]]>The NDP finance critic officially began his response to the budget with a few remarks shortly before 5pm last Thursday. The House then adjourned.

Mr. Julian picked up again on Friday morning at 10am. He spoke for an hour, then paused for statements by members and Question Period, then resumed around 12:15pm. He spoke for three hours until the House moved on to private members’ business.

On Monday at noon, the House returned to the budget debate and Mr. Julian picked up where he’d left off. He spoke for two hours until it was time for statements by members and Question Period. He resumed speaking at 3:30pm and remained on his feet until just about 6:30pm, when the House began adjournment proceedings.

Shortly after the House opened for business this morning at 10am, Mr. Julian rose to continue with his remarks. He informed the House that, after pausing for QP, he should be done speaking sometime around 4:30pm.

As the opposition member responding to the Finance Minister, Mr. Julian is subject to no time limit. He has invited members of the public to write in their comments on the budget and has been reading them into the record as he goes. The budget debate itself is subject to a maximum of four days of debate. By the time he’s finished, he will have taken up just less than three days of that.

Thomas Mulcair was asked yesterday about Mr. Julian’s speechifying and explained as follows.

We’ve been very clear since the beginning we’re going to use every opportunity that the parliamentary rule book presents us as Official Opposition to do our jobs correctly of showing everything that’s wrong with this budget. We have a Prime Minister who stood up in the House and promised he wouldn’t touch pensions. He’s adding two more years to get your OAS. He’s taking $12,000 out of the pockets of every single senior who’s going to be reaching retirement age. He swore that he wouldn’t touch health transfers to the provinces. We’re going to be short $31 billion from what was planned. These are things that have to be pointed out. Their economic management has been abysmal and we’re going to take all the time that we need and use all of the parliamentary tools at our disposal to make sure that we do our jobs as Canadians have elected us to do.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/peter-julians-one-man-show/feed/10The Commons: Back to black along a road paved in copperhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-back-to-black-along-a-road-paved-in-copper/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-back-to-black-along-a-road-paved-in-copper/#commentsThu, 29 Mar 2012 22:38:33 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=249609"Pennies take up too much space on our dressers at home," Mr. Flaherty complained.

In keeping with tradition, the Finance Minister was applauded simply for showing up. Jim Flaherty arrived two minutes after four and, upon realizing his existence, the Conservatives stood and cheered. Poor Peter Stoffer, attempting to contribute to a debate on the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, was drowned out entirely.

With Mr. Flaherty in the room, the Speaker announced that the House would be moving on to government orders. The minister stood and his Conservative colleagues treated him to a second standing ovation. He proceeded with the procedural niceties required to table the budget documents and when he was finished there was more applause.

“Looking ahead,” he said when he’d finally begun, “Canadians have every reason to be confident.”

Twasn’t it ever thus? Has a Finance Minister ever stood in this place and tabled anything other than a prudent, forward-thinking masterstroke that cast us ahead to a more brilliant future? Is it possible that Archibald McLelan and Edgar Nelson Rhodes or another of Mr. Flaherty’s predecessors once rose and pleaded for the House’s mercy or confessed that he was only vaguely sure of the numbers?

Likely not. Indeed, within a few paragraphs, Mr. Flaherty was referencing the hopeful words of Sir George Eulas Foster, our eighth finance minister.

“His words are more compelling now than he could have imagined,” Mr. Flaherty mused. ” ‘There is especial need just now for long vision and the fine courage of statesmanship, and the warm fires of national imagination. Let us summon them all to our aid. We should not be thinking overmuch of what we are now, but more of what we may be fifty or a hundred years hence. Let us climb the heights and take the long forward look.’ ”

Mr. Flaherty confessed here that this government has been taking its inspiration from Sir George all along. “Since 2006 our government has taken that long forward look,” the Finance Minister explained.

So how then did we get here? How did the federal balance end up in deficit?

“Let us review the record,” Mr. Flaherty proposed. He proceeded then to list eight different tax breaks.

It was around this time that a woman in the west gallery stood and said she was a student. Another woman then stood and announced, “I am a senior.” Then there was someone shouting in the north gallery. And then there were a couple dozen on their feet, chanting, “This is not our budget” and “Where are we in your budget?” Some of them disrobed enough to display a t-shirt bearing that slogan. Within a few minutes the House security staff had coaxed the protesters to the exits.

Mr. Flaherty sat and waited. With the disruption quelled, he stood and his colleagues treated him to another standing ovation.

Returning to his text, Mr. Flaherty congratulated himself on the stimulus package his government eventually offered in January 2009. He saluted the country’s relative success. He warned of unnamed forces who would seek to “kill jobs, impose crushing deficits, and cripple our economy.” Those who would “squander Canada’s advantage.” Those who would turn us into Greece.

“Our government will not allow that to happen,” he assured.

Phew.

So about that deficit. “We are on track,” Mr. Flaherty said. “In less than two years, we have already cut the deficit in half.” But he would not rest on such laurels. “In this budget we will take the next steps,” he continued. “We will implement moderate restraint in government spending.”

The same party that promised never to run a deficit now celebrates the fact that the deficit it is currently running is only half as large as the deficit it was running a couple years ago. The same party that condoned the G8 Legacy Fund now preaches restraint. (Awhile later, Mr. Flaherty would actually announce “new funding to improve border infrastructure.” Somewhere in Muskoka, a smalltown mayor surely made a note of this.)

The road back to black is apparently paved in the copper of our obsolete coinage.

“The vast majority of the savings will come from eliminating waste in the internal operations of government, making it leaner and more efficient,” Mr. Flaherty explained. “For example, our government will do what everyone agrees should have been done long ago. We will eliminate the penny.”

This was apparently a big deal. The top item on Mr. Flaherty’s list of fiscal prudence. The great realization of Sir George’s dream.

“Pennies take up too much space on our dressers at home,” Mr. Flaherty complained. “They take up far too much time for small businesses trying to grow and create jobs.”

The burden of sorting and rolling would now be lifted. Mr. Flaherty’s legacy was now assured. And yet, there was still more. Public servants would now be asked to participate in more video conferences. And large government documents would no longer be printed on paper.

Various smart alecks on the opposition held aloft the brick sized budget books that the House pages had handed out to every MP.

The rest was all denouement. A series of oh-by-the-way footnotes about reforms to Old Age Security, public service pensions, immigration, innovation policy and the regulation of natural resources development. Left unmentioned was the 19,200 public service positions that will apparently be eliminated.

“Mr. Speaker, I’ve gone on almost as long as it seems,” Mr. Flaherty quipped around 4:30pm.

He proceeded finally to loftiness, his speechwriters starting six consecutive sentences with the phrase “we see” as Mr. Flaherty waxed poetic about all the serenity ahead. “We see Canada for what it is and what it can be—a great, good nation, on top of the world, the True North strong and free,” he said, somewhat confusingly. “Our government has been inspired by this vision from the beginning. Today we step forward boldly, to realize it fully—hope for our children and grandchildren; opportunity for all Canadians; a prosperous future for our beloved country.”

Here, then, a fourth standing ovation.

The NDP’s Peter Julian stood waiting for the cheering to subside. When it had he immediately offered the line he’d no doubt been waiting hours to deliver.

“All we can say,” he said, “is this budget is a penny wise and a pound foolish.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-back-to-black-along-a-road-paved-in-copper/feed/26The Commons: That familiar refrainhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-that-familiar-refrain/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-that-familiar-refrain/#commentsMon, 13 Feb 2012 22:43:15 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=239628The money may be running out, but Ottawa will never lack for things to shout about

]]>The Scene. Peter Julian, head nodding and bobbing for emphasis, began with a harangue for the government’s F-35 fixation. Heritage Minister James Moore, today’s stand-in for the Prime Minister, enjoyed the opportunity to explain the difference between those who Support The Troops and those who do not.

This though was mere prelude to the matter of Old Age Security. “Everything is about choices and priorities, and the choice of F-35 is a bad choice,” Mr. Julian said by way of segue. “Another bad choice, of course, is the reduction of Old Age Security for Canadians.”

And this was mere prelude to Wayne Marston standing and reviewing, in his quiet, folksy way, the story so far. “Mr. Speaker, first the Conservatives said that OAS was unsustainable and needed to be cut. On Friday, the Finance Minister said that changes to OAS would be delayed until 2020 or 2025. Then a government spokesperson said the finance minister is wrong,” Mr. Marston recounted.

This was merely the short version—leaving out both the Prime Minister’s triumphant speech in Davos at the start of this three-week saga and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s rebuke this weekend. But, of course, this was mere prelude to the question that still hangs over all of this.

“Seniors and families are worried. Canadians deserve straight answers so that they can plan for their retirement,” Mr. Marston summed up. “Is the government going to change the eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67, yes or no?”

Up for the umpteenth time came Diane Finley. “Mr. Speaker, let us face it,” she demanded, “Old Age Security, if it continues on the current course, will become unsustainable.”

“No!” moaned various voices.

“Not true!” chirped someone on the House’s left side.

Mr. Marston gave it another go. “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised not to touch OAS, then he made up a false crisis and broke his promise. Then the Minister of Finance said OAS changes will not take place till 2020, 2025. Then a government spokesperson says the Minister of Finance is wrong,” he reviewed. “How can Canadians trust the government when it clearly does not what it is doing? One more time: Will the government raise the eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67, yes or no?”

Once more to Ms. Finley. “Mr. Speaker, Canadians do trust that their government will be there to look after them, and that is exactly what we will do. We will not mislead them the way the NDP is doing,” she protested, waving a hand in the general direction of the official opposition. “We will not do that at all.”

Except, of course, for that bit about the system’s unsustainability.

At this point, Bob Rae attempted poetry. There were two Canadas, he said. One that is “doing well” and “prosperous” and succeeding.”

The Conservative side broke into applause. The Speaker admonished them to cut it out. Greg Rickford, parliamentary secretary to the minister of aboriginal affairs and one of the government side’s most enthusiastic clappers, protested. From his seat, he whined that the Speaker did not reprimand the NDP for their collective shouting “yes or no” when demanding answers.

“On the other side,” Mr. Rae continued, “we have a Canada that is falling further behind.”

The interim Liberal leader wondered if the government’s next budget might deal with these matters of employment and insecurity. Mr. Moore took the opportunity to enthuse that this was precisely the sort of thing this government was focused on. Mr. Rae then took the opportunity to wonder why the government had raised employment premiums on January 1. Mr. Moore then took the opportunity to note that the government had cut corporate taxes on January 1. And then Mr. Rae took the opportunity to suggest that this was the problem exactly—cutting taxes for corporations, while raising taxes on individuals. Mr. Moore lamented that Mr. Rae was being “divisive.”

The judges ringside ruled it a draw and with that the proceedings returned to their familiar refrain.

“Why is it that this government continues to sow fear and confusion?” the NDP’s increasingly confident Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe wondered aloud. “Will the government raise the age of retirement from 65 to 67 years, yes or no?”

Mr. Rickford threw up his arms and pleaded with the Speaker for decorum. He may have to be patient. For this is all mere prelude to a budget that is still several weeks away. And then there will be only more things to shout about.

The Stats. Pensions, seven questions. Crime, five questions. Military procurement, patronage and government spending, four questions each. The budget and employment, three questions each. Aboriginal affairs, two questions. The disabled, veterans, firearms, shipbuilding, science, whales and trade, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-that-familiar-refrain/feed/7The Commons: When photo ops go wronghttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-when-photo-ops-go-wrong/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-when-photo-ops-go-wrong/#commentsTue, 07 Feb 2012 00:40:24 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=238093Ask not what jobs have been lost, ask how many more jobs might leave if the corporate tax rate is raised

“When(!) is the government going to show leadership? When is it going to work on a jobs plan so that Canadians(!) can get back to work?

The subject here was the recent closure of Electro-Motive Diesel in London, Ontario—a closure notable not only for the 450 individuals it put out of work, but because the plant was once selected as an ideal scene to demonstrate the Prime Minister’s economic stewardship. And so a silly picture of Mr. Harper pretending to conduct a train is now a symbol of some kind. And so Mr. Julian was yelling this afternoon in the general direction of the Finance Minister.

Rising to respond, Jim Flaherty began in a low grumble. “Mr. Speaker, we remain focused, of course, on jobs and economic growth,” he reported.

The Finance Minister built then to a dull roar that culminated in him shaking his glasses (which he held in his hand) at Mr. Julian and scolding that the NDP critic had demonstrated “an irresponsible attitude … that looks only at tomorrow morning and not down the road.”

Mr. Julian took the easy retort. “Mr. Speaker,” he responded, “in the long term Canadian families are going to be a lot worse off under the government.”

He proceeded then with his harangue. “Conservatives gave Caterpillar $5 million,” he recounted. “The Prime Minister was willing to use the workers as an election prop for his photo op, and now that those same workers are out on the sidewalk he just drives right by in his limousine.”

There were groans from the government side.

“The government has thrown millions of dollars away, and what we have are plant closures and jobs going south,” Mr. Julian continued. “White Birch, MA-BAY, AstraZeneca and now Electro-Motive. Why is the government dropping the ball? Where is the jobs plan for our hard-hit communities across this country? Where are the jobs? Where is the jobs plan?”

As the applause swelled up around him he appeared to repeat this question half a dozen times.

Perhaps sensing the tension, Mr. Flaherty apparently figured here was a good time for a joke. “Mr. Speaker, my car is actually a Chevrolet Impala from Oshawa, Ontario,” he quipped.

Then something of an oversimplification. “The member opposite will recall voting against our plan to save General Motors and the 400,000 jobs in the auto sector across the country.”

Then another joke. “I know my friend opposite is a student of parliamentary history and I know he wants to remember, he just forgot to say so, to congratulate the Prime Minister’s government on its sixth anniversary of being sworn in as the government of Canada, an excellent government especially.”

Across the way, Mr. Julian allowed a slight smile to this, but a few moments later, his colleague, Yvon Godin was turning a nice shade of maroon as he berated the government side over the “revolting” practices of various companies. Industry Minister Christian Paradis, attempting to match Mr. Godin’s verve, shook and shimmied as best he could as he then castigated Mr. Godin for voting against all the various job creation measures advanced by this government in its budgets.

The government, he said, was “empathetic.” “What happens in these families is dramatic,” he ventured. “However, they can rely on the government that will do just the opposite of what these people advocate, that is to say tax increases of more than $10 billion. This is irresponsible and does not make sense.”

So ask not what jobs have been lost, ask how many more jobs might leave if the corporate tax rate is raised. If the Prime Minister’s wishes to pitch that message in London, he best get there quick before all the trains are gone.

The Stats. Pensions and employment, eight questions each. Syria, abortion and government contracts, four questions each. Trade, copyright, the environment and child care, two questions each. Immigration, affordable housing, public transit and the Queen, one question each.

Will the Prime Minister be cutting Old Age Security benefits, she asked, yes or no? Will the age of eligibility be raised to 67, she wondered, yes or no?

“We want an answer,” she concluded.

In response, the Prime Minister had two answers. “Mr. Speaker, I was very clear. This government will not cut benefits for our seniors. I am very clear,” he declared. “At the same time, we will protect the system for generations to come.”

After jetting off to Switzerland and standing proudly before the global elite and bragging of his stewardship and boasting of “major transformations” to come, the Prime Minister seems suddenly shy. It is as if, having scaled the rhetorical heights, he was suddenly reminded why he generally avoids high places. And so now he is attempting to stall, perhaps even soothe, with a sleight of hand.

Of course simply stalling won’t carry all the days between now and the delivery of the budget in March. So there is also scorn. Good ole dependable scorn.

“It is for the opposition to scare seniors,” Mr. Harper concluded, “it is for us to protect seniors.”

Indeed, the Prime Minister was similarly disappointed in Bob Rae.

“As I said before, the opposition is scaring our seniors,” he sighed in response to the interim Liberal leader’s first question, “our government will protect our seniors today and in the future.”

Undaunted, Mr. Rae upped his own rhetorical ante. “Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is basically saying, ‘We are going to protect the system by cutting access to it. ‘ That is what he is saying,” the Liberal helpfully translated. “He is not only dumping on the most vulnerable senior citizens, including women who are going to be qualifying for old age security who get their old age pensions, he is also dumping on the provinces, dumping on municipalities, creating a cascade of injustice because of a totally manufactured crisis on his side. It is a well known neo-conservative tactic that the Prime Minister is engaging in. I can tell him we are not going to put up with it and neither are the Canadian people. They will not put up with it. They will not accept it.”

There was not a question here, but the Prime Minister stood anyway.

“Mr. Speaker, even The Globe and Mail said that the leader of the Liberal Party is fearmongering,” Mr. Harper chided, “and that is before all the nonsense we just heard.”

Of speaking in spooky voices, the NDP’s Peter Julian had also accused the government side of inventing its own boogie man.

“In 2032, the percentage of GDP devoted to OAS will actually be declining and yet Conservatives are trying to manufacture a crisis so they can cut benefits to seniors in the future,” Mr. Julian argued, bearing down and edging forward and staring down the Prime Minister as he lectured. “Budgets are choices. Why are Conservatives choosing to spend $30 billion on F-35s, $19 billion on prisons, but claim they cannot find $540 a month for Canadian seniors?”

But here Diane Finley, the Minister of Human Resources, attempted to put all things in perspective.

“Mr. Speaker, we do have an obligation to protect all Canadians, whether that be through our military so that we can protect against foreign invasions,” she ventured, “or, indeed, to protect their financial security.”

And when, 30 years from now, you’re not begging your Russian oppressors for a serviceable stipend, you’ll thank your lucky stars that Stephen Harper was in charge.

The Stats. Pensions, eight questions. Foreign aid, four questions. Crime, equality and education, three questions each. Aboriginal affairs, Service Canada, military procurement and National Defence, two questions each. Government spending, the environment, trade, Sri Lanka, foreign investment, infrastructure and veterans, one question each.

]]>The Scene. “Mr. Speaker, once again, I think the government has been repeatedly clear when it comes to retirement income, such as old age security,” the Prime Minister clarified.

And on that note, his second sentence. “We have no intention,” he said, “of changing any benefits.”

Clearly. At least so far as those with no short term memory could be concerned. For the rest of those listening, there was what the government had sent up Wai Young to say no more than 90 seconds earlier. “We will implement any changes fairly,” the dutiful backbencher reassured the House with the last intervention before Question Period, “allowing lots of time for notice and time to adjust.”

So the government has no intention of making changes. But if—for whatever reason—it should be struck with such intent sometime between now and the tabling of this spring’s budget, you are to be assured that those changes will be implemented fairly. Indeed, even with these changes existing only in the theoretical, the government presently lacking even the intent to make them, Ms. Young managed today to congratulate her side for having had the courage to change. “In fact,” she reported, “the National Post gets it with its front page headline today, ‘Tories on the right side of pension reform.’ ”

Of course, what the Prime Minister presumably means to say is something that was vaguely implied in his third and fourth sentences. “In fact, seniors would continue to receive everything that they are receiving and expecting,” he explained. “At the same time, younger generations expect us to ensure the system is viable for them. That is a responsibility this government takes very seriously.”

So if you are currently old, you’ve nothing to worry about. And if you plan on getting old, you might have to think about working a couple more years. But hopefully that’s far enough off—and the big numbers sufficiently scary-seeming—that this will all be a distant memory when the government stands for reelection in 2015.

In the meantime though, the opposition has an opportunity to make unflattering comparisons.

“The government has a choice,” Peter Julian asserted this day, his hair dramatically parted in a great swoop to the right. “A single F-35 costs $450 million. That would pay OAS benefits for 70,000 Canadian seniors. Its prison plan costs $19 billion. That would pay annual benefits for 2.9 million Canadians seniors. The Conservatives say costly prisons and fighter jets are their priority. We say seniors are more important.”

Diane Finley forced a slightly patronizing smile and proceeded to rhyme off a list of things the NDP had apparently voted against in refusing to support the government’s previous budgets. “They should have voted for the biggest increase in the guaranteed income supplement which helps our poorest seniors that we made last spring. They should have voted for that,” she scolded. “Their actions speak a whole lot louder than their words.”

This last reference was particularly inspired, the New Democrats having in fact rejected the government’s GIS increase because they felt that increase to be too small. (That difference between $300 million and $700 million being one of the reasons we had an election last spring.)

Of words and actions, Bob Rae attempted then to broker a connection.

“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “at the time of the last election the Prime Minister’s party put out an election platform that said, and I quote: ‘We will not cut transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces for essential things like health care, education and pensions.’ ”

Various Conservatives across the way happily applauded.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Rae continued, “I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us as he talked in Davos about a demographic crisis and he talked about it again today … Was the Prime Minister aware of this so-called demographic crisis at the time that he and his party made the election promise they made just a few short months ago?”

In response, Mr. Harper used the word “clear” no less than three times, but he did not answer the question.

Mr. Rae lost his temper here and failed to ask a question in between his shouting and the Prime Minister took the opportunity to mock Mr. Rae’s record as premier of Ontario nearly two decades ago.

Regaining himself, the interim Liberal leader then returned to his original question. The House went quiet and the only sound was that of Mr. Rae’s confidently spoken French. “Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he was aware of the demographic problem, whether he knew he was going to cut pensions in the future and raise the retirement age?” Mr. Rae asked. “If he was aware of these things, why has he not revealed to Canadians his big plan? Why did he decide to hide what he wanted to do and what he intends to do now?”

Mr. Harper assured the House that the government had been clear and switched to French to chastise the Liberals for their failure to be dutiful and deferential. But once again he did not answer the question.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-the-case-of-actions-v-words/feed/59Future old people take notehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/future-old-people-take-note/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/future-old-people-take-note/#commentsFri, 27 Jan 2012 21:59:49 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=236377The Harper government explains how its supporters and spokespeople should be explaining potential changes to Old Age Security.To be clear: there will be no changes to the benefits seniors …

]]>The Harper government explains how its supporters and spokespeople should be explaining potential changes to Old Age Security.

To be clear: there will be no changes to the benefits seniors currently receive. We will ensure any changes are done with substantial notice and adjustment period and in a way that does not affect current retirees or those close to retirement, and gives others plenty of time to adjust and plan for their retirement.

CBC has an interview with Ted Menzies. NDP finance critic Peter Julian says asking people to work until they are 67 years old before receiving OAS is “completely unacceptable.” The Liberals are promising a fight. And they’d like you to sign a petition.

Paul thinks we just heard a Throne Speech. Mark Kennedy figures the age of eligibility for Old Age Security will be raised from 65 to 67. Peter Julian and Scott Brison are worried.

“Now, he’s threatening … seems to be trying to precondition us to cuts to the OAS, which is there to help the lowest income Canadians,” charged Mr. Brison. “At a time when other global leaders at Davos are addressing income inequality not only is Harper ignoring it he’s threatening to make it worse.” Mr. Brison asserted the OAS is “very important for low income seniors and one of the reasons why Canada is successful economically is because we are progressive socially and we help vulnerable people.”

And for whatever insight might be gleaned into where this is all going—or at least what the next little while is going to sound like—here are the official Conservative talking points on the Prime Minister’s speech.

The Prime Minister made it clear to the world that our number-one priority is prosperity – that is jobs and economic growth.

The wealth of western economies is no more inevitable than the poverty of emerging ones.

It is based on the good, growth oriented policies, the tough choices and hard work done in the past.

Under our Government, Canada will make the transformations necessary to sustain economic growth, job creation and prosperity, now and for the next generation.

This means making better economic choices now and preparing for the demographic pressures the Canadian economy faces.

We will continue · to keep tax rates down · to make the key investments in science and technology necessary to sustain a modern, competitive economy, and · to advance our trade linkages.

We will make it a national priority to ensure we have the capacity to export our energy products beyond the United States, and specifically to Asia.

In this regard, we will soon take action to ensure that major energy and mining projects are not subject to unnecessary regulatory delays – that is, delay merely for the sake of delay.

This complements work we are already doing with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to cut the burden of red tape on entrepreneurs.

We will also undertake significant reform of our immigration system.

We will ensure that, while we respect our humanitarian obligations and family reunification objectives, we make our economic and labour force needs the central goal of our immigration efforts in the future.

Canada’s ageing population, if not addressed promptly, has the capacity to undermine Canada’s economic position

Our demographics also constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish.

For this reason, we will be taking measures in the coming months to ensure the sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position over the next generation.

Each nation has a choice to make: whether to create the conditions for growth and prosperity, or to risk long-term economic decline.

Canada’s choice will be, with clarity and urgency, to seize and to master our future, to be a model of confidence, growth, and prosperity in the 21st century.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-does-it-all-mean-2/feed/21The Commons: Ipso facto governancehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-ipso-facto-governance/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-ipso-facto-governance/#commentsWed, 23 Nov 2011 00:06:39 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=226522Cast off ye shackles of tyranny and step into the light of a world without math

The Scene. Adherents to the faith of smaller government take note, for the Harper government has successfully identified and eliminated one of the prime inefficiencies standing between us and true freedom.

“This government cannot say how many jobs were created after having spent $47 billion of Canadians’ money,” lamented the NDP’s Peter Julian this afternoon of the government’s trademarked action plan. “The program was so badly monitored that no one knows if it was effective.”

Of this, Mr. Julian can claim the authority of the auditor general, who apparently found no attempt by the government to determine precisely how many jobs it “created” (in the messianic parlance) with its billions in bridges, roads and hockey arenas.

But just because the government can’t—indeed, won’t—add, doesn’t mean Mr. Julian can’t subtract. “We now know that 72,000 full-time jobs were lost last month thanks to the policies of this government,” he asserted with his next breath. “Now that the truth is out, when will this government put aside bogus and unsubstantiated job claims and take real and immediate action to create jobs here in Canada for Canadian families?”

Jim Flaherty would at least stand to respond to this.

“Mr. Speaker, the positive impact of the economic action plan which the official opposition voted against can be seen in the almost 600,000 net new jobs for Canadians since the end of the recession,” he grumbled in something of a low rumble. “It was a good plan. It worked. It is regrettable that the NDP chose to vote against it.”

In place of math, Mr. Flaherty has here the ipso facto—that which “can be seen.” And unlike addition and subtraction and all the bureaucracy that would entail, Mr. Flaherty’s operation sparkles with efficiency. You see, something positive has occurred. And during the period in which that positive thing happened, Mr. Flaherty and the Conservatives were in charge. Therefore, Mr. Flaherty and the Conservatives are to credit for that positive thing that has happened.

(It is, of course, necessary to note that the same model does not hold for negative things. Whatever has gone wrong these last five years is the fault of external forces wholly unrelated to Mr. Flaherty and the Conservatives, up to and including their periodic concessions to Big Math. It was the world economy. Or the previous Liberal government. Or China. Or the general unwillingness of the Canadian public to elect fully 308 representatives of the Conservative Party of Canada. And so forth, forever and ever, amen.)

Mr. Julian, bobbing back and forth from one foot to the other, insisted here on lecturing the Finance Minister. “The government and the Canadian public cannot compare the goals of the Conservative plan with the outcome,” he moaned. “That is actually what good managers do: goals, outcomes, matching it up. They did not do it. There is no monitoring. There is no transparency.”

Of monitoring and transparency, Tony Clement apparently felt qualified to comment, standing then to sounds of mock amazement from the opposition side. “Mr. Speaker, as my honourable colleague has indicated, this economy has created nearly 600,000 net new jobs under this government, under the economic action plan, which, as my colleague, the minister, indicated, has been praised by Auditors General, and of course Canadians agree with that,” he asserted. “They gave us not only strong praise, but a strong mandate to protect and complete Canada’s economic recovery.”

Mr. Clement does not settle for what is true, you’ll understand, but what can be proven. And what this spring’s election proves is that the Conservatives created those 600,000 jobs.

Or, put another way, it could be worse: that being the campaign slogan that has successfully carried the Conservatives to reelection not once, but twice. “They, on the other side, of course, call for higher taxes that would kill jobs and hurt the economy,” Mr. Clement explained. “Our plan is to keep taxes low, to focus on jobs and to grow the economy. I think Canadians agree with us.”

That should have been that, but then John McCallum was up and whining about all of the ways in which the auditor general had reported mismanagement and disorganization within the government’s operations. And then the NDP’s Alexandre Boulerice was declaring it all a farce. And then Mr. Clement began to conduct that orchestra only he can hear, waving his arms about as he ventured an attempt at squaring it all.

“The facts of the matter are the same,” he declared. “The facts are that we have been helping to make sure that our economy is moving away from the recession and toward complete recovery. We have nearly 600,00 net new jobs in this economy as a result of our activities and our actions.”

And if you say that loud enough and often enough, you needn’t worry about whether it’s actually written down anywhere.

The Stats. The economy and crime, six questions each. Pharmaceuticals, five questions. The environment, four questions. Health care and military procurement, three questions each. Agriculture, affordable housing, fisheries and immigration, two questions each. Iran, the long-gun registry and infrastructure, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-ipso-facto-governance/feed/13The Commons: Down with inequality, up with the price of cheesehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-down-with-inequality-up-with-the-price-of-cheese/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-down-with-inequality-up-with-the-price-of-cheese/#commentsThu, 17 Nov 2011 00:14:17 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=225599MPs agree: in Canada, you can never pay too much for dairy

]]>The Scene. It began with a rousing cheer for Nycole Turmel. The official opposition was perhaps behooved to loudly endorse their interim leader after a Conservative backbencher had used the House’s preceding minute to read aloud some scripted bit about how disgraceful Turmel had behaved on some matter or another.

“Mr. Speaker, over the past few months we have witnessed a protest movement on a scale never seen before,” she ventured. “The Occupy movement is denouncing economic disparity.”

There were grumbles and groans from the government side.

“People are fed up and they decided to act,” Ms. Turmel continued. “The parks might be cleaned up, people may have to go home, but the economic problems will not go away. Unemployment is too high, especially for youth. The economic gap is growing. Has the Prime Minister heard the cry for help?”

The Prime Minister didn’t much like this question and so he substituted his own. “The real question, Mr. Speaker, is whether the NDP has heard any such cry,” Mr. Harper sighed.

Soon enough he was wagging his finger and moaning about how a couple of NDP MPs, taken with apparent concerns for the environment, had gotten on a plane and flown to Washington to express an opinion about the Keystone pipeline that was not unquestionably supportive. “This government does not go to another country to argue against job creation in Canada, but that is what the NDP did,” he complained, “a party that is totally unfit to govern or even comment on the creation of jobs.”

Ms. Turmel went on about how the government wasn’t doing enough about jobs and Mr. Harper went on about how the opposition was opposed to jobs. “The fact that the NDP has focused on the Occupy protest rather than on job creations tells us everything we need to know about the NDP,” Mr. Harper huffed, “a party that is totally unfit to govern or even comment on job creation.”

Having repeated this line for the cameras twice, Mr. Harper returned to his seat to await the Liberal leader’s questions. In the meantime, Peter Julian and Ted Menzies engaged in a debate over responsibility. It is the NDP’s stance that the government is to blame for the 72,000 jobs lost last month. It is the government’s stance, conversely, that it is to credit for the 600,000 jobs created since the end of the recession. You might say both are right. You might say both are wrong. But neither would agree with you either way.

“Mr. Speaker, it is sad,” Mr. Julian sighed. “Canadians are struggling with lost jobs and the Conservatives are struggling with bogus job numbers.”

The NDP critic tabled his preferred statistics. “We have seen, under this government, that the jobs that are created are low-wage jobs,” he reported. “One in five Canadian men and one in three Canadian woman now make less than two-thirds of the average wage and the jobs they get make $10,000 less than the jobs the Conservatives lost.”

Mr. Menzies countered with his preferred big-sounding number. “Mr. Speaker, I can say what a $10 billion tax hike would do to jobs,” he warned. “That is what the NDP wants to load on us. It was in its campaign platform. It wants to download that onto Canadians.”

But if you were to conclude from this that the governing side and the official opposition agree on nothing, you would be terribly wrong. Because for all the fury and indignation, however little each side seems to think of the other, there is one thing on which they are absolutely and loudly unified: the need to artificially inflate the price of cheese through government intervention.

“Farming families are asking for a simple answer to a simple question,” NDP MP Malcolm Allen declared this afternoon. “Is the government dismantling supply management, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz confirmed, answering in the positive where he actually meant the negative, “we are with the supply management sector.”

So let them—Occupiers and non-Occupiers, New Democrats and Conservatives—eat Canadian cheese. Presuming they can afford a block.

The Stats. Military procurement, six questions. The economy and energy, five questions each. Ethics, four questions. Supply management, three questions. Infrastructure, Service Canada, the environment and the Internet, two questions each. Seniors, Syria, crime, human rights, Iran, water safety and immigration, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-down-with-inequality-up-with-the-price-of-cheese/feed/16Julian counts himself outhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/julian-counts-himself-out/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/julian-counts-himself-out/#commentsTue, 04 Oct 2011 16:13:37 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=218574A statement released just now by NDP MP Peter Julian.Over the past few weeks I have been consulting with activists in the NDP family about the possibility of running …

Over the past few weeks I have been consulting with activists in the NDP family about the possibility of running for leadership of our Party. I left the door open to that possibility while I talked extensively with New Democrats in our federal caucus and party, the labour, social, and environmental movements and civil society.

I feel I have consulted widely and have come to the point of making a decision. I will not be a candidate for leadership at our Convention in March, 2012.

Like many other New Democrats, I have been asking myself and others how best to continue the legacy of Jack Layton as we move forward to government in 2015. I have decided that my role is to continue my work as Interim Caucus Chair at this key point in our history and, as Industry Critic, to continue our work with the other significant economic roles in our shadow cabinet to put in place strong alternatives to the current government on jobs and the economy.

I have many people to thank for speaking with me and offering their advice and support over the last month.

I would like to thank my constituents in Burnaby-New Westminster and elected representatives at all levels in the cities I represent for their strong support and encouragement. As a proud British Columbian, their support meant a great deal to me.

I thank five federal caucus members who publicly urged me to run and other MP’s who were encouraging me to enter the race.

I thank the many activists in Quebec who were encouraging me – an Anglophone from British Columbia – to run for leadership. I deeply appreciate their confidence in me.

I thank activists from across the country in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the Prairies, the North, and of course BC, for their positive phone calls, e-mails, and postings.

And I particularly appreciate the support of my family through this period. My fiancee, Limei Tian, has been extremely supportive on this difficult decision.

For all those entering the race, I have a final thought.

Canada is, increasingly, a society where greater and greater disparities exist. People with Disabilities, Aboriginal People, New Canadians, and Young Canadians are excluded from a prosperity that touches a smaller and smaller percentage of Canadians. As a movement, I believe our challenge is ensure that we build a Canada where every Canadian counts and no one in our country is left behind. That means engaging with social movements, the labour movement, the environmental movement, the community business sector and excluded, and marginalized groups throughout our country to continue the building of a broad, diverse and solid grass roots movement to win government in 2015.

This is an exciting time in our movement’s history. I am confident for the future.

We have terrific candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds in this leadership race. Some have already entered. Others should be entering shortly. It is my hope that we have a particularly strong number of women candidates in the race.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/julian-counts-himself-out/feed/4Everybody wants to be NDP leaderhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/everybody-wants-to-be-ndp-leader/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/everybody-wants-to-be-ndp-leader/#commentsFri, 30 Sep 2011 15:15:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=218022While Brian Topp picks up the endorsement of Libby Davies, Nathan Cullen will be announcing his candidacy later today.“We have a chance to reach beyond those who are already …

]]>While Brian Topp picks up the endorsement of Libby Davies, Nathan Cullen will be announcing his candidacy later today.

“We have a chance to reach beyond those who are already onside,” he said in an exclusive interview. “I think there is a much broader progressive movement that is more open to us than in our entire history because of Jack’s legacy, because of some things that have happened to the other parties, the door has opened in Quebec and right across the country.”

Topp, Cullen and Romeo Saganash will be joined by Paul Dewar and Nova Scotia businessman Martin Singh on Sunday. Some or all of Peter Julian, Peggy Nash, Robert Chisholm and Niki Ashton may yet join the race as well. Allowing for the possibility of another candidate or two to emerge and the field could easily total ten contenders.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/everybody-wants-to-be-ndp-leader/feed/9Who’s out, who’s being encouraged to get inhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whos-out-whos-being-encouraged-to-get-in/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whos-out-whos-being-encouraged-to-get-in/#commentsThu, 22 Sep 2011 14:31:23 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=216747Libby Davies has decided not to run for the NDP leadership. Peter Julian hasn’t announced a decision, but he picked up two more endorsements yesterday from within the NDP caucus:…

]]>Libby Davies has decided not to run for the NDP leadership. Peter Julian hasn’t announced a decision, but he picked up two more endorsements yesterday from within the NDP caucus: MPs Isabelle Morin and Kennedy Stewart.

]]>Charlie Angus thought about it and decided not to seek the NDP leadership. Peggy Nash and Peter Julian say they’re respectively considering it. Romeo Saganash says he’s still consulting. And Thomas Mulcair says the pool into which he may leap is filling up nicely.

But this morning at 11am Brian Topp will convene reporters in regards to “his intention to seek the leadership of the New Democratic Party of Canada.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/starting-at-the-topp/feed/0Open to considerationhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/open-to-consideration/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/open-to-consideration/#commentsWed, 31 Aug 2011 13:00:59 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=212227Megan Leslie hasn’t ruled out a run for the NDP leadership. Paul Dewar says his name can be included on the list of possible candidates. The Globe says Charlie Angus…

]]>Megan Leslie hasn’t ruled out a run for the NDP leadership. Paul Dewar says his name can be included on the list of possible candidates. The Globe says Charlie Angus is considering it. Peter Julian is thinking about it. And so is Francoise Boivin, who, via her assistant, ventures a prerequisite for any future leader.

Another Quebec MP, Francoise Boivin, is giving it some thought, according to her parliamentary assistant, Alexandre Gingras. He said Tuesday the Gatineau MP is waiting to see what rules are established by the party to govern the race before deciding whether to throw her hat in the ring.

Gingras said Boivin has already made one thing clear: that the next leader should be “perfectly bilingual.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/open-to-consideration/feed/14‘No good purpose is served’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/no-good-purpose-is-served/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/no-good-purpose-is-served/#commentsThu, 11 Aug 2011 15:33:36 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=208622In Colombia yesterday, the Prime Minister attacked critics of free trade with the country.“No good purpose is served in this country or in the United States by anybody who …

“No good purpose is served in this country or in the United States by anybody who is standing in the way of the development of the prosperity of Colombia,” said Harper. “Colombia is a wonderful country with great possibility and great ambition. And we need to be encouraging that every step of the way. That’s why we have made this a priority to get this deal done. We can’t block the progress of a country like this for protectionist reasons.”

… Opposition to the trade deal has come from critics such as the federal NDP in Canada. Similarly, U.S. lawmakers have dragged their feet on approving a similar free-trade deal with Colombia, citing concerns over human rights. But Harper scoffed at those concerns, calling them a phony excuse. “I think there are protectionist forces in our country and in the United States that don’t care about development and prosperity in this part of the world. And that’s unfortunate.”

When I was reporting this piece on the House of Commons, MPs were debating a deal with Panama. The discussion I sat in on then—including debate between Scott Brison and Peter Julian and later Joe Comartin and Brad Trost—dealt with many of the same points of contention.

]]>Shortly after the clock passed midnight, a dozen Conservatives sang happy birthday to their colleague, David Sweet. His birthday had actually just passed—he was born on June 24, 1957—so the gesture was a bit belated. But perhaps owing to the pizza party the Prime Minister had apparently been hosting, the government side seemed a jovial bunch, eager to find fun wherever it could be found.

As luck would have it, they had all been summoned to the House of Commons at this late hour for a vote—specifically on an NDP-authored motion to delay moving forward with Bill C-6 for another six months. The official filibustering of this particular piece of particularly contentious legislation had commenced some 27 hours earlier. What began on Thursday was now moving into Saturday. Except that, so far as the reality within these four walls is measured, with the House having not yet adjourned for the day, this was still Thursday. Indeed, there in the middle of the room sat the four-sided calendar, reminding all who could see it that here they remained trapped in June 23.

With the Conservatives turned out almost entirely and with the half dozen Liberals who’d shown up going with the government, the motion was soundly defeated by a count of 160 to 74. The Conservatives duly mocked the New Democrats for not filling all their assigned seats. In fairness to the official opposition, in light of their demonstrations and protestations these last few days, laziness is not something of which they can easily be accused.

The government side’s Tom Lukiwski stood then to beg the New Democrats to consider now relenting. He accused the New Democrats of attempting to “obfuscate and delay,” a complaint that was met with a round of happy desk-thumping from the opposition. The country could not, he declared, afford any further delay. Alas, the NDP’s Chris Charlton seemed not the least bit persuaded as she proceeded to review why her side felt it necessary to keep everyone here. This was about the right to organize and free collective bargaining and the right to strike, she said. Not to mention, wages, working conditions and pensions.

After some heckling and laughing, the Conservatives mostly lost interest, talking amongst themselves in small groups as Ms. Charlton went on. When the din became too loud, the Speaker called for order. As Ms. Charlton finished up, a half dozen Conservatives crowded around Ben Lobb’s laptop to watch something that was apparently quite amusing.

When it came round to Liberal Kevin Lamoureux’s turn, he wondered, as Liberals had done repeatedly over the previous 27 hours, if the NDP might be ready to bring forward the amendments it wishes to make to the legislation in question. The Liberals are making a great show of trying to be the adults in the room, mostly without discernible result. And here, again, the New Democrats demurred.

At approximately 12:43am, the Prime Minister rose from his seat, bowed towards the Speaker’s chair and crossed the aisle to sit beside Jack Layton. They proceeded to talk and gesture and smile and laugh. At one point, Mr. Layton reached over and touched Mr. Harper’s arm. They seemed in friendly discussion about something or other (a deal perhaps?).

At approximately 12:48am, the Prime Minister reached over and touched Mr. Layton’s arm, then rose, bowed towards the Speaker’s chair and crossed back over to the government side. He and Mr. Layton then respectively exited the chamber.

Sometime around one o’clock, the Speaker called on Eve Peclet, the 23-year-old former community activist and reality show contestant with a law degree. If memory serves, it was Ms. Peclet who was spotted skipping up the row to her seat on Parliament’s first day back this month.

Here she lit up the air around her, enunciating each syllable in a thick accent and crying her concerns about democracy and labour and the hard-working mail carrier across the aisle. She yelled and stared down her hecklers and jabbed her desk quite loudly. Those remaining on the Conservative side stopped whatever they were doing to watch. Olivia Chow wandered in from the opposition lobby to stand and watch, looking positively delighted with what she saw. When Ms. Peclet finished, removing her glasses for her final words, her friends on the NDP side rose to applaud. She broke into a great grin and laughed and even clapped a little for herself.

In response, Gary Goodyear stood to note that he’d received emails from postal workers who were not entirely supportive of their union. Members have, at regular intervals, paused throughout this debate to read from their inboxes. Oddly, the Conservatives seem only to receive messages supportive of the Conservative position, while the New Democrats only receive notes expressing support for the NDP position.

Shortly thereafter, the NDP’s Randall Garrison began detailing the life story and political principles of J.S. Woodsworth. And then there was some debate over to what degree the present day’s economic situation could be compared to that of the 1920s and where precisely to draw the poverty line.

“What this dispute is really about, what this legislation is about,” the NDP’s Jinny Sims declared at one point, “is the kind of Canada we want.”

Indeed, in short order there was some discussion of the Canadian Wheat Board, the NDP government that oversaw the province of Ontario from 1990 to 1995, the Conservative government that oversaw the province of Ontario from 1995 to 2002, the E. coli breakout in Walkerton in May 2000 and, of course, the Gomery commission. (Although, in fairness, it should be noted that the discussion remained mostly, if repetitively, on point and New Democrats remained, despite the hour, ferociously engaged.)

Conservative Colin Carrie stood and lamented for all of this. A fellow from the NDP helpfully advised that this could all be brought to a conclusion if the government would simply advise Canada Post to end its lockout of postal workers. And so we arrived back at precisely where we’d begun.

It was here that Elizabeth May, seated in the far corner for all of this, stood and attempted a sort of summation. A half dozen spectators remained in the visitors gallery above her. The clock stood around 2am.

She complimented all members on their sense of duty, even if she lamented for the regular outbreaks of partisanship. Everyone, she figured, wanted to see mail delivery resumed. One side thinks the best way to do that is to pass Bill C-6. The other side thinks the best way to do that is to fight Bill C-6. And so, she figured, perhaps the way forward was an amended Bill C-6.

In response, of course, the Conservative Michael Chong stood to lament for the opposition side and the NDP’s Peter Julian stood to complain of the government side. And so we remained in, as Ms. May put it, a state of “suspended animation.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/transgendered-after-party-on-the-hill/feed/58Accountability hysteriahttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/accountability-hysteria/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/accountability-hysteria/#commentsFri, 21 May 2010 16:34:14 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=128154Government house leader Jay Hill, a spokesman for the Board of Internal Economy, laments the attention the current debate over MP expenses has received, but acknowledges it might be discussed…

]]>Government house leader Jay Hill, a spokesman for the Board of Internal Economy, laments the attention the current debate over MP expenses has received, but acknowledges it might be discussed further at the board. Fisheries Minister Gail Shea isn’t concerned either way. Conservative Daryl Kramp says an auditor general audit is inevitable but unnecessary. The NDP caucus is split: Charlie Angus says it needs to be worked out with the auditor general, Pat Martin, Peter Stoffer and Peter Julian say open the books, Yvon Godin is obstinate. Liberal Marlene Jennings calls for disclosure. Liberal Bryon Wilfert defends the status quo.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/accountability-hysteria/feed/30Jason Kenney is appalled by your politicizationhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jason-kenney-is-appalled-by-your-partisanship/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jason-kenney-is-appalled-by-your-partisanship/#commentsTue, 26 May 2009 20:21:08 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=59980From QP this afternoon.Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Dmitri Lennikov graduates from high school this Friday. His gift from the Minister of Immigration could be the …

Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Dmitri Lennikov graduates from high school this Friday. His gift from the Minister of Immigration could be the deportation of his father and the forced separation of his family. Dmitri has spent all of his school life in Canada. The Lennikov family has been contributing to my community for 11 years. They have never been accused of any crime. Today the Lennikov family has come to Ottawa from B.C. They are no longer just a memo or a briefing note, but a real family. Will the minister meet with the Lennikov? Will he keep this family together?

Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that a member would try to politicize a case that has been before the Immigration and Refugee Board, before our courts, before our public servants with both an application for humanitarian compassion and a pre-removal risk assessment. We do not politicize cases of inadmissibility that come before the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent, quasi-judicial body. There is a legal system in place for these matters to be considered. This particular case has been considered by our courts and by the IRB.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jason-kenney-is-appalled-by-your-partisanship/feed/70Today in Parliamenthttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/today-in-parliament/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/today-in-parliament/#commentsFri, 28 Nov 2008 18:39:20 +0000http://macleans.wordpress.com/?p=20659Before Question Period each day, 15 minutes is set aside for MP’s to stand and deliver short statements on whatever subject they wish to speak to. Usually this involves expressions…

]]>Before Question Period each day, 15 minutes is set aside for MP’s to stand and deliver short statements on whatever subject they wish to speak to. Usually this involves expressions of concern for international events, commendation for local charities, or reference to legislative matters. It is, at least in theory, the House’s one forum through which individual members can speak of their own volition, irrespective of ongoing debate or strict party interest.

Here’s a quick recap of today’s statements.

Conservative Lois Brown rose first to decry violence against women. Liberal Mario Silva expressed concern for the welfare of senior citizens. The Bloc’s France Bonsant called on the government to aid workers in her riding. The NDP’s Peter Julian outlined human rights violations in Colombia. Conservative Dona Cadman accused the opposition of greed and arrogance. Liberal Anthony Rota asked the government to support an airport in North Bay. Conservative Harold Albrecht accused the opposition of greed and arrogance.

The Bloc’s Luc Malo saluted a Quebec professor who helped develop a more environmentally conscious way to manufacture steel. Conservative Rick Norlock accused the opposition of greed and arrogance. Liberal Brian Murphy asked the government to address declining salmon stocks in the Bay of Fundy. Conservative Jacques Gourde accused the opposition of greed and arrogance.

New Democrat Paul Dewar drew attention to the raping of women in international conflict. Conservative Gerald Keddy accused the opposition of greed and arrogance. The Bloc’s Meili Faille lamented the ideology of the government’s economic policy. Liberal Marc Garneau expressed concern for Canadians caught in the turmoil presently taking hold in Thailand. Conservative LaVar Payne accused the opposition of greed and arrogance.